Preamble

The House met at half-past Nine o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair].

Orders of the Day — Sexual Offences (Conspiracy and Incitement) Bill

Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Clause 2

INCITEMENT TO COMMIT CERTAIN SEXUAL ACTS OUTSIDE THE UNITED KINGDOM

Mr. John Marshall: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 2, line 18, at end insert—
'() Any act of incitement by means of a message (however communicated) is to be treated as done in England and Wales if the message is sent or received in England and Wales'.

Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also No. 2, in clause 6, page 4, line 26, at end insert—
'() Any act of incitement by means of a message (however communicated) is to be treated as done in Scotland if the message is sent or received in Scotland'.

Mr. Marshall: The purpose of the amendments is to extend for the purposes of the Bill the scope of incitement, to ensure that any incitement by means of a telephone call, fax, Internet message or any other modern form of communication is deemed to take place in England, Wales or, as the case may be, in the glorious part of the country called Scotland, if the message is received in England, Wales or Scotland. Thus, if someone is sent a fax in England inciting him to commit an offence, the originator of the fax has committed an offence because the incitement to indulge in such a holiday was felt here.
An amendment similar in effect was tabled by the Opposition spokesman in Committee. I am sure that the hon. Members for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) and for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding) will both confirm that we had a productive Committee stage. We had a listening Committee. My right hon. Friend the Minister and I listened to the concerns that various right hon. and hon. Members expressed.
The amendment was resisted on the grounds that it was technically deficient. I sympathise with the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth for the fact that the amendment was deficient. None of us is a trained parliamentary draftsman—indeed, sometimes even they

produce technically deficient Bills and amendments. So they cannot be surprised when mere Members of Parliament have the same problem.
My right hon. Friend the Minister accepted that there was merit in the principle of the amendment moved in Committee, but he thought that the position would probably be covered by the existing common law offence of incitement. It is always important when we obtain an opinion from a Minister which is based on a legal opinion that we have a belt-and-braces approach. We know only too well that lawyers make their money out of giving opinions.

Rev. Martin Smyth: The hon. Gentleman said that the amendment referred to faxes in England, Wales and Scotland. In this world of communications, should he not also have included faxes in Northern Ireland, especially when we bear it in mind that travel agents and others operate in all the countries?

Mr. Marshall: The hon. Gentleman has anticipated a later paragraph in my speech. Under clause 4, this amendment would also apply to Northern Ireland. We know that evil knows no national boundaries, and that there are some people in Northern Ireland who are not so good as they might be.

Mr. Spencer Batiste: I should be grateful if my hon. Friend would expand on a couple of points. It seems to me that this new amendment of his introduces the principle of extra-territoriality—something which many of us would have liked to see in the Bill on a much wider front.
If I understand it correctly, the amendment will mean that a British citizen, say in Bangkok, who sends a telegram or fax that might be deemed incitement will be guilty of an offence in Britain, and, should he return, could be prosecuted even though at the time of the offence he was located abroad. I should be grateful if my hon. Friend could confirm that the important principle of extra-territoriality has now been accepted.

Mr. Marshall: As my hon. Friend knows, the principle of extra-territoriality has always been accepted for certain aspects of British law. We both voted for the War Crimes Act 1991, which involved that principle. He is right: if someone in Bangkok sends out faxes or Internet messages to individuals in the United Kingdom saying, "Come here, there are 12-year-olds to be bought for £5," that would be an offence under the Bill.
That is rightly so, because it is hard to conceive of the depths of depravity to which normally civilised people will sink. The House will have been appalled to read that, in Australia, a former Australian ambassador is being accused of paedophile activity while he was on official duty.

Mr. Batiste: I am grateful for what my hon. Friend has said, and I may want to speak on it at some length later, but when he mentioned the Internet, he touched on another aspect of considerable significance.
The difficulty posed by the Internet is that a message put up by a British subject in Bangkok is not necessarily physically delivered to the United Kingdom, either in hard copy or electronically. It is the person in Britain who plugs into the message board who receives it. Clearly, that person might be guilty of an offence, but would the man


in Bangkok, if he had done no more than put a message on the Internet, be liable for incitement if he returns to the United Kingdom?

Mr. Marshall: Amendment No. 2 states:
Any act of incitement by means of a message (however communicated) is to be treated as done in Scotland if the message is sent or received in Scotland.
Similarly, amendment No. 1 refers to
any act of incitement by means of a message (however communicated)".
Obviously that covers the Internet, faxes, letters or any method by which someone is incited to go on such holidays.
Someone in a Bangkok office who decides to put an offensive message on the Internet encouraging people to go on holidays in Bangkok, Peru or another underdeveloped country for these disgusting activities, will be covered by the Bill, guilty of an offence and liable to prosecution if they return to the United Kingdom.

Mr. Alun Michael: Did we not decide in Committee that the difficulty of proving incitement and conspiracy is such that it was necessary to ensure that the simple act of the making information available, or of transmitting it to the United Kingdom, should be covered by the Bill? If it were not, the Bill's impact would be minimal, if not negligible. I welcome the amendments as a major improvement that will go a great way to meeting the aspirations that we shared in Committee. Of course, the Bill is still limited to incitement and conspiracy.

Mr. Marshall: In advertising, it is argued that some advertisements are persuasive and some informative, but the latter are also designed to be persuasive. The Bill, as now worded, means that, if people send messages that girls or boys can be had for £5 in a certain hotel in Bangkok, it is an incitement. It is not a purely factual message but an incitement to go there to engage in these disgusting activities. We are at one on that.
On the wider question of extending the Bill, the Government have set up an inquiry into the principle of extra-territoriality, about which I am sure my right hon. Friend the Minister will want to talk. Without going too deeply into the matter, I fear that, if we were to apply the principle of extra-territoriality to crimes committed in, say, Bangkok, we might be indulging in a gesture.

Mr. Michael: rose—

Mr. Marshall: Do let me finish. I am being pretty generous in giving way. The hon. Gentleman should at least allow me to finish my argument before he asks me to give way again.
We frequently hear about the experience of Sweden, but let us consider what happened. The boy who gave evidence to the Swedish court—

Mr. Michael: Did we not agree in Committee that many hon. Members aspired to go further than the Bill does? As

the hon. Gentleman said, the Government are undertaking an important inquiry. We agreed that we should speed the Bill, in as effective a form as possible, through the House, so that at least a step forward was taken. I say that because, with respect, it is not necessary to go into the arguments about widening the Bill, because we all agree that this is a first step. Let us take it and not delay and perhaps risk the Bill.

Mr. Marshall: When I am incited by an Opposition Front-Bench spokesman not to speak, it is almost as good as when my Whips tell me to speak. I obey unhesitatingly on both occasions.

Mr. Edward Garnier: I hesitate to intervene in the debate because I was not a member of the Committee. I have had the advantage of reading the report of the Committee, and I agree with the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) that it was constructive; it makes good reading.
I entirely support the principle behind my hon. Friend's Bill, but I am worried that, with amendments Nos. 1 and 2, we may be seeking to get to the best and so not achieving the good—that the best is the enemy of the good is an old cliche. Is my hon. Friend sure that they will prevent or inhibit potential inciters abroad from listing names and addresses on a bulletin board that can be received in this country?
The bulletin board could appear wholly innocent. It would simply list No. 4, Jones street, Bangkok or whatever. That will mean more to a knowledgeable receiver than to an ordinary receiver of that information. Clause 1(3), the double criminality clause, states:
The second condition is that that act or other event constitutes an offence under the law in force in that country or territory.
Is he sure that his well-intentioned amendments will allow what I loosely call the double actionability rule to bite on the clause and ensure that the inciter in Bangkok would face arrest if he came to this country?

Mr. Marshall: rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. Before the hon. Gentleman continues his speech, I must warn against excessively long interventions. If they are that long, they should be the subject of a separate speech.

Mr. Marshall: Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank you for that protection. I have always thought that in politics, a long question is a great bonus, because the audience will have forgotten the question by the time the person asking it has finished. I do not know whether my hon. and learned Friend confesses that he has forgotten any part of his question.

Mr. Garnier: I have not forgotten my question.

Mr. Marshall: I think that part of the House probably has. My answer is that, if I did not think the amendment would have the effect that I have outlined, I would not have tabled it; nor would the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) have made his comments in Committee if he had not thought that it was a real problem.
Many of us find the revolution in information technology difficult to understand, as it happened after we reached the age of 21—at least, it did for me. I do not necessarily know as much about it as some of my younger colleagues, but if someone in Bangkok seeks by means of what one would describe as informative advertising to encourage individuals to go there and indulge in those awful, perverted and pernicious acts, I believe that he would be caught under these amendments.

Lady Olga Maitland: I thank my long-suffering hon. Friend for giving way, but it is an important point—

Mr. Garnier: He was in the middle of an answer to my question.

Mr. Marshall: I had finished with my hon. and learned Friend.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. We cannot have one intervention on another. I call the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland).

Lady Olga Maitland: Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. Obviously, I will bear those remarks in mind.
We were talking about technology and how it can be a vehicle for transmitting such information. My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) mentioned telephone calls. Is he suggesting that, if it is believed that they are being used as a mechanism for transmitting such material, they should be intercepted or, indeed, bugged?

Mr. Marshall: With her customary charm, my hon. Friend has managed to enter into yet another field of activity. I am sure that one could have a long and learned discussion about whether telephone calls should be tapped. No doubt our right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office can tell us the conditions under which telephone calls should be tapped. My view is that there are certain privacies in this world, and that, if one cannot make a telephone call without having it tapped—unless there are very good reasons for it being tapped—we would be denying individuals one of their human rights.

Mr. Michael: Is not the simple fact that nothing in the law is changed in relation to the interception of messages by anything in the Bill, including the amendments, so that issue is irrelevant to today's debate?

Mr. Marshall: I have learnt that, whether interjections are relevant or irrelevant, colleagues are never stopped from making them.
I hope that I have dealt with the last intervention, and I ask the Minister to talk about the inquiry into extra-terratoriality, which is obviously dealt with tangentially by the amendment. The principle is one that he announced that the Government were again investigating.
He has said that the investigation should be completed before the summer recess, and it would be helpful to the House, in view of the impact of the amendment, if my right hon. Friend referred to that matter at some stage, especially in view of what has happened in Australia in the past few days.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Maclean): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) for tabling these amendments, which clarify, for the purposes of the Bill, the scope of the common law of incitement.
Let me say at the outset that there is no question but that the sexual exploitation and abuse of children is an evil act, and that children should be provided with the highest level of protection against such abuse. I am sure that the whole House would agree that everything possible should be done to prevent and deter the perverts who indulge such behaviour.
These two amendments, small though they may look on paper and insignificant and technical though they may appear, are central to the thrust of this Bill. The issues covered by the amendments were raised in Committee by hon Members from both sides of the House. My view was that the common law of incitement was adequate to cover the situations envisaged by the amendments. I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South shares that view.
This is an area, however, where certainty is a valuable commodity—a point I recall the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) making in Committee. I am therefore glad that my hon. Friend has moved these amendments, and I can reassure him and the House that the Government support them.
It may be helpful to the House to reflect upon the principle that lies behind the amendments and how increasingly important it is in today's world. Incitement is an act of urging or encouraging someone to do something. Today, I shall incite hon Members to support this Bill. By doing so, I am not committing a criminal offence, because the act that I am inciting hon. Members to do is perfectly lawful.
However, if I urged hon. Members to run outside and rob a bank, I would be guilty of a criminal offence—at least, I would if parliamentary privilege did not apply—as I would be encouraging them to do something unlawful. That, simply, is the common law offence of incitement.
In that case, there is no doubt as to the jurisdiction of the courts. I, the inciter, and hon. Members, as—if I may use the word—incitees, are here present. But that new—indeed, not so new—technology, which has brought so much benefit to so many people's lives, can also bring disbenefits and confusion in this area of law.
If I went on holiday to France and wrote a letter to someone in this country, urging him or her to commit a criminal offence here, am I committing an offence in this country? I believe that there is case law that suggests that I am, and that, if I were then foolish enough to return to this country, I could be arrested and charged for incitement.
The postal service—marvellous though it is—is not an example of the most modern technology. Vocal communication systems—mobile phones, for example—enable us to speak to anyone in the world, from anywhere in the world. Would encouragement to commit an offence by phone message be incitement at common law? Case law may be less certain there.
The Internet, which has been mentioned this morning, is a subject about which we have heard much recently, and I am sure that hon. Members will hear a lot more


about it in the future. If I understand it correctly, the Internet is simply a linking together of individual computers around the world. I have no doubt that it can be described more fully and more technically in several volumes of books, each weighty enough to be described as an encyclopedia, but put simply, that is all the Internet is.
Nevertheless, it is a powerful thing and it is going to get a lot more powerful. Messages can be sent around the world in seconds—not just text, but images and even moving images, voice, sound and music. The police have shown me some, and I have heard it said that the only barrier to what could be carried on the Internet in future is one's own imagination. That is as maybe, but such a powerful tool, which offers wonderful opportunities for enhancing communication around the world, unfortunately lends itself to mischief making, and is one of the prime tools being grabbed by paedophiles and others in that filthy business.
Incitement by Internet is now a possibility, and that incitement can take place anywhere in the world instantaneously. The question is, can our common law cope? I should like to think that the common law, which has served this country well for centuries, is robust enough to deal with any challenge that the late 20th century can throw at it. As an aside, Scots law was always able to adapt rapidly to modern technology and trends, from the 1700s and 1800s on, but that is not relevant to this debate.
We must not forget that in this Bill we are dealing with the safety and security of innocent children.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: rose—

Mr. Maclean: I should not have tempted my hon. Friend. May I finish this point before I give way?
Any society must, as its first priority, see to it that its children are protected and cared for by the law of the land.

Mr. Jenkin: My right hon. Friend's previous comment raises a question that I should, perhaps, not be asking. Surely the Bill applies in Scotland. Is my right hon. Friend suggesting that some of the provisions might be applied very differently there?

Mr. Maclean: No, I was not suggesting that they would be applied differently in Scotland. I was merely suggesting that the Scottish legal system, which is based on Roman-Dutch law, whereby judges could rule that something was contra bonos mores and interpret the law more flexibly than case law in England, could be said—this is merely an academic argument of the type that might take place in some of the Scottish universities when Scots law and its future in Britain or, indeed, Europe are debated—to enable it to deal more flexibly with new customs, technology or crimes that Parliament has not yet decided to outlaw. Scottish courts, for example, took a slightly different view of the practice of wheel clamping than did the English courts.
There is no question of interpreting the law differently. It is merely that, by habit, custom and coming from different theological bases, Scots law and English law have developed different flexibilities.
We do not want there to be any doubt on this subject. The law being passed today—which hopefully will receive a Third Reading today—will apply equally in both countries of the Union, as it will, of course, in Wales and Northern Ireland through clause 4.

Mr. Batiste: For many years, I have been very interested in the issue of extra-territoriality and in the technological aspects of the internet. My right hon. Friend has just made some very positive statements about the Internet and about how messages on it would be covered by this legislation. There are, however, some very significant differences, which I shall try to draw out in a little more detail shortly in a speech.
There is a difference between sending out a message to an intended recipient in the United Kingdom and putting a message on to a bulletin board on the Internet somewhere in the world, which would then be examined and scanned by people in the UK. I am not at all sure that the drafting of this amendment will necessarily catch that second type of incitement over the Internet.

10 am

Mr. Maclean: I believe it does, because the amendment states:
if the message is sent or received".
If the wording was
if the message is sent with the intention that it may only be received in England by a willing recipient",
it would have a severe limitation, and would not be relevant to the Internet. The fact that someone is "surfing the net" or "scanning"—or whatever the jargon is—and receives the message is sufficient to trigger this clause. There would be no problem in relation to the legal position.
There will, of course, still be a practical problem if that person in Bangkok who was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Elmet (Mr. Batiste) never leaves Bangkok or returns to Britain, because we will physically not be able get our hands on him. Nevertheless, the crime will have been committed.

Mr. David Congdon: I should like to continue with the point about intent in relation to sending a message and whether it has been received. As a non-lawyer, my concern is whether someone would be able to drive a coach and horses through the clause by arguing that, by sending the message to a bulletin board, they were not intending necessarily that it should be received by someone in England. Would not a clever lawyer—there are plenty of clever lawyers in this place, as there are elsewhere—be able to use that as a defence?

Mr. Maclean: I would say no, in no circumstances could it be used as a defence. We know what bulletin boards are, and we will get more details about how the Internet works. Bulletin boards are not a dead end in themselves, but a means of ensuring that messages are kept anonymous so that it is difficult to discover who sent the message. The sender knows that the message will then be transmitted to another web of computers and received by other people.
It would not be a defence for someone to say, "I invented a message and put it on the bulletin board, but of course I never expected anyone to read it." That defence would be disingenuous, and I do not think that it would hold water with any judge, magistrate or jury.

Mr. Jenkin: What would happen if the message in question is in a foreign language? Could it be argued that, even though the message is available in the UK and of course available for translation, because the message is in French or Spanish, for example, it is not intended to be read in this country? Could that be used as a defence?

Mr. Maclean: I do not think that that would hold water as a defence, either. In many of those examples, it would be a matter of proof and the facts of the case. According to the amendments' wording, the message would still have been received in the United Kingdom, and it would still be an offence however the message was communicated—in whatever language it was communicated. Many people in this country speak Spanish, and somewhere in this country every language is spoken by someone. Despite the language, it would still be an offence.
The amendment is certainly worded in such a manner that it would catch those messages. It would then be a matter for the police and the prosecuting authorities to decide in each case whether they had sufficient evidence to justify a prosecution, and of course whether they physically have the fellow who did it—and I say "fellow" advisedly.
I was saying before I ventured into my biased Scots law aside that there should be certainty. These amendments must provide such certainty. Any act of incitement by means of a message, however communicated, shall be deemed to take place in England and Wales if its effect is felt and received there. The second amendment deals with exactly the same situation in Scotland.
Thus, no one can claim that they are outside the jurisdiction of the Bill because they sent the message by Internet from Hong Kong, used a mobile phone in Venezuela or posted a letter in Egypt. If the message was received in this country or sent from here, the news is—by virtue of these amendments—they are caught.
That is the message that I should like to go out from the House today when the Bill is reported—that we are after those people in future. The message should be not only that we can now catch their physical acts against children, but that—when this Bill goes through its stages today, through the other place and then receives Royal Assent—the people hiding on the Internet or sending their filthy messages by that means of communication will be caught by this Parliament and by this Bill.

Mr. Garnier: My right hon. Friend may have uttered a slip of the tongue. He used the expression "sent or received"—which is in the amendment—but he also used the expression "the effect of', which is not quite the same as "sent or received". I wonder—bearing in mind the case of Pepper v. Hart, which allows the courts to look at what Ministers say in Committee—whether he could be a little clearer about the use of the expression "the effect of', because we are talking incitement.

Mr. Maclean: I thought that it was quite clear that the act shall be deemed to have taken place in England or

Wales if the message put on the Internet in any other part of the world is felt here—if it is received here, seen here and available to be read by people here—and that it is an offence and is caught by this section. The effect of putting that message on the Internet is felt here, so the law is triggered. I hope that that is clear.
The person does not necessarily have to go and commit an act of indecency with a child. The person does not have to carry it into effect. Because the incitement has been put on the Internet—perhaps to come to Bangkok to do things with children—does not mean that the person who receives the message has to go to Bangkok and physically carry out an act before the crime is committed. The person who put the message on the Internet similarly does not have to ensure that someone carries out an act before he is guilty of an offence. The fact that the message has been put on the board and has been received here is the offence, not whether any physical act is then perpetrated.

Mr. Michael: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, because I think that he is helping to clarify the intention of the Bill, as I understand it. May I try my own words to clarify the position? The act of the putting information on an electronic bulletin board is the first step of a piece of communication that would be caught under these amendments. That is how I interpret the words in the amendments, and I believe that that is what the Minister intends, is it not?

Mr. Maclean: As I understand it, yes; I think that we are in agreement on that—but, of course, it has to be received here for the offence to be triggered.

Lady Olga Maitland: On the point about "received", what would happen if the recipient received material that was totally unsolicited? The offence, therefore, must have been perpetrated by the sender. If the sender is overseas, it is clearly not an offence, but the person receiving unsolicited material in this country could be deemed to be committing an offence. I am sure that that is not what my right hon. Friend intended.

Mr. Maclean: No. The criminal is the inciter, the person who puts the information on the Internet, or communicates the message by fax or whatever. That person is inciting others to go to countries to do certain things with children. The innocent person who is browsing the Internet and stumbles across that information does not commit any offence. If a person lifts paedophile material or indecent photographs of children from the Internet, or from any other source, and then uses them or trades them, that person is guilty of existing offences.
A person may well read such messages in a newspaper where such advertisements, which are carefully worded, escape existing law. That will not happen in the future. I have been sent some of those sex tour advertisements by hon. Members. Of course the innocent person who reads such advertisements is not guilty of an offence, but the person who plants them with intent is guilty of an offence.
Reference has been made to the fact that Northern Ireland is omitted from the text of the amendment. I hasten to explain that that is not an error. Clause 4 applies the provisions of clause 2 to Northern Ireland. The amendment to clause 2, which refers to England and Wales, encompasses Northern Ireland by virtue of the provisions


of clause 4. I do not want any hon. Member from Northern Ireland, or indeed any other hon. Member, to believe that that part of the United Kingdom has been given any less prominence than any other part.
Hon. Members may recall the Bolin case in Sweden. Last year, the Swedes successfully prosecuted one of their own nationals, Bengt Bolin, for sexual offences committed against a boy in Thailand. It was an interesting case, because many people wrote to me and urged me—incited me, perhaps—to change the law to allow our courts extra-territorial jurisdiction over child sex offences. They believed that that successful prosecution showed that we could do the same.
I looked at the case carefully, took advice from appropriate professionals, and came to the conclusion that, on the facts of the case as presented to the court in Sweden, we could not have secured a conviction under English law. I do not want any hon. Member to get me wrong—I am not saying that the conviction in Sweden was unsafe, unfair or in any way tainted. Under their rules of evidence, they secured a conviction, and one pervert had to pay his dues to society by serving a term of imprisonment and paying compensation to his victim. I am sure that we are all pleased about that.

Mr. Tom Cox: It is interesting to hear the Minister's comments. Did he get in touch with the Swedish Government about the matter?

Mr. Maclean: I did not get in touch, but my Department has a huge staff to do that sort of thing. We received transcripts of the case, which were in Swedish, not surprisingly, and we had them translated. We analysed them in great depth and took expert legal advice. We could not reach a conclusion without reading those transcripts. But good luck to the Swedes, because, under their perfectly legitimate and sensible law, they managed to get a conviction, but under English rules of evidence we would not have managed to secure one.

Mr. Michael Alison: I hope that you will allow me, Madam Deputy Speaker, to refer briefly to the Bolin case, which my right hon. Friend has raised. I believe that he is being disingenuous by suggesting that that case would have failed in a British court. The English prosecution service would not have presented the case in the same way. The essence of the case would have been presented to a British court, which uses the jury system, in a different way from how it was presented to a Swedish court, where a judge sits with other adjudicators.
An eminent Swedish juryman has written to the Coalition on Child Prostitution and Tourism:
From a purely practical viewpoint, I would dare to venture that the English jury system might tend to favour the prosecution—I reckon that a 60-year-old retired civil servant proven to be found in a bedroom at night with a twelve year old Thai boy regularly engaged in prostitution might be off to a bad start with twelve English jurors!
I suspect that that is the case. My right hon. Friend is slightly misjudging the relevance of the Bolin case by saying that, if it had been presented here as it had been presented in Sweden, it would not have stood up. The prosecution would have approached it in a different way in the British courts, and a conviction would have been secured.

Mr. Maclean: My right hon. Friend is right to say that, if the evidence was ever put before a jury, one would hope that an English jury would convict. He is also right to say that an English prosecutor would have to present the facts in a radically different way if he was to secure any conviction or ensure that any part of the case was heard.

Mr. Garnier: rose—

Mr. Maclean: I shall give way in a moment.
10.15 am
If one studies the evidence given by the boy, one will find that he alleged that he settled on the final version of his story after, as he claims, he was threatened by a police officer in his own country, who was waving a gun at him. We do not quite allow that under the rules of evidence in this country, but that at least is what he said.
The boy was looked after and prepared for his court hearing by a non-governmental organisation. Can one imagine what would happen in our courts when the defence lawyer stood up and said that the boy had been prepared for his court hearing? The defence would certainly claim that the boy had been prepared and made to recite his evidence backwards, whether that was true or not. We do not allow that in an English court. Can one imagine what would happen if the boy gave evidence in an English court under cross-examination? Even the most newly qualified lawyer would tear his evidence apart.
One of the main reasons that the Swedes got a conviction and preferred the boy's version of events to that of the defendant was that the defendant had admitted assaulting the boy to an off-duty Swedish police officer who was posing as a fellow child molester. That conversation was clandestinely recorded by a Danish television crew. I cannot imagine the circumstances in which we could manage to get such evidence accepted in an English court.

Mr. Michael: I fear that the Minister is allowing himself to go down avenues that are not necessary to our debate. Frankly, the Swedish case is irrelevant, and the Minister has said why. It took place under different rules of evidence, and under a different legal system. Surely we are interested to hear from the right hon. Gentleman about how his inquiries and conclusions may make it easier for the law of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland to deal with the actions of our citizens abroad. The Minister undertook that his investigations would be directed at that objective.

Mr. Maclean: I am grateful for that opportunity to move on. My right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) suggested, erroneously, and in the nicest possible way, that we could easily get a conviction in similar circumstances to the Bolin case. I could not let him get away with that. As I have said before, because of some of our defence lawyers, we have difficulty getting convictions when an armed robber in this country is caught on camera in front of 12 police officers.

Mr. Garnier: rose—

Mr. Maclean: I shall give way for the last time.

Mr. Garnier: The Bolin offence could not have been tried in this country because we do not have extra-territoriality. That is the end of the argument.

Mr. Maclean: Yes. We could not try that case in this country because we do not have extra-territorial jurisdiction. Some people argue, however, that, if we merely had such jurisdiction, there would be no problem, and we could convict people like Bolin. A mere change in the law does not give us carte blanche to change our rules of evidence. In similar circumstances, we would not get convictions. If it was that easy, why do we not get convictions in those countries where those crimes are committed and where we are willing to extradite those involved? In the context of these amendments, that case illustrates the differences in the legal systems of various countries—the different concepts, the different traditions, and even the different kinds of behaviour.
Conspiracy and incitement—which are at the heart of the Bill—are not recognised as criminal offences in many countries, but they may have other offences that cover some of the same ground. These amendments are necessary because it is unlikely that we would have the essential dual criminality for the incitement acts which may originate in another jurisdiction to be a criminal offence there and for us to seek a prosecution under the laws of the foreign state.
While the case of Mr. Bolin was perhaps a disappointment for those who felt that it would demonstrate that our courts could easily convict people of crimes committed abroad, it illustrated to us the need ensure that our legislation covers adequately, and to the extent that our courts can and should take jurisdiction, all the possible avenues of, in this instance, incitement that should be explored. We must leave no stone unturned, particularly as communication is so rapid and reaches all corners of the world. There is no longer any part of the globe which can truly be said to be cut off from the reach of the child molester and his propensity to incite, encourage and recruit converts to his evil ways.
Sadly, there are child molesters in all parts of this country who travel abroad to indulge in their filthy practices. They include lawyers, doctors, bank managers, social workers, manual workers, travel agents, clerks, lorry drivers and pensioners. You cannot tell that someone is a child molester just by looking at them. That is what is so difficult about dealing with these perverts—they appear to be so normal, but, secretly, they are looking for children to abuse.
I cannot say often enough: we must make the Bill a shield to protect children. Children deserve our protection no matter where they are in the world. That is why the Bill is taking powers over acts committed here in the preparation for, or furtherance of, sexual offences committed abroad.
In this context, these amendments are even more important because so often the incitement will come from abroad. One pervert will go to a country where, sadly, children are sold for sexual favours, find a brothel or a bar where these poor souls are for sale, indulge in his wicked ways, and then call his friends in the United Kingdom and tell them to come over there and indulge in the same abuse. That is incitement—the message is sent from abroad, and no matter what coded language it may be, if that is the intention and it is received here, we have caught them—and we would all say, "Hear, hear" to that.
In the past, many hon. Members have proposed that we take extra-territorial jurisdiction, and they have considered that this country, by not taking such jurisdiction, is letting these perverts get away with it. Although we are prepared to extradite our own nationals, subject to the usual rules, to stand trial in countries where an offence has been committed, it is argued that that is not enough. The country concerned may not seek extradition—indeed, we may not have an extradition arrangement with them. The proposals for an extension of the scope of incitement go some way to meeting the concern expressed by hon. Members.
It is true that we already take extra-territorial jurisdiction over a range of offences. Specific statutes have extended the criminal law to cover the conduct of persons outside the territory of England and Wales, often with the objective of implementing an international convention or of protecting a particular domestic interest. There are some precedents for taking extra-territorial jurisdiction.
There are precedents for taking extra-territorial jurisdiction. It has been suggested that the practical difficulties of mounting successful prosecutions could be overcome. The corrupt nature of the official systems in many countries could be bypassed by using non-governmental organisations to investigate allegations of abuse and to obtain the evidence necessary to secure a conviction in this country.
Perverts often return to this country with clear evidence of their crimes—video tapes, for example—and other countries have taken extra-territorial jurisdiction to deal with these offences. It has also been suggested that the United Kingdom should join the international consensus on this issue to mark its abhorrence of the activities of child molesters.
These are powerful arguments, and I treat them with great respect—I have not dismissed them lightly—but no responsible Government can rush into legislation on this and ignore the counter-arguments if there is the possibility that the legislation will be nothing more than a gesture. Criminal jurisdiction in the United Kingdom is traditionally territorially based—that is, there is an assumption that, for conduct to constitute an offence here, there must be a connection to the territory of this country. The strength of this system lies in its simplicity. Crimes are best investigated in the country where they are committed, by the relevant prosecuting authorities.
We are willing to extradite our nationals, subject to the usual rules, to stand trial abroad. We have extradition agreements with many countries. Of the states in the European Union, only the United Kingdom and Italy are completely free in extraditing their nationals, and France and Germany never do so. Where extradition agreements do not exist, ad hoc arrangements may be made in circumstances where we are satisfied that the offender will receive a fair trial.

Mr. Alison: I have a couple of points on the important area that the Minister is covering. Will he confirm that, if a country such as Thailand introduces a death penalty for child abuse, we will still extradite British nationals in conjunction with our extradition treaty? Otherwise, his extradition argument is weaker. Will he confirm that the


review that he mentioned in Committee is still continuing, and that he is not announcing negative conclusions about the review in his remarks at the present time?

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the Minister replies, I should point out that the debate is now becoming very broad. I am not sure whether the nature of the amendment lends itself to such a wide argument.

Mr. Maclean: Naturally, you are correct, Madam Deputy Speaker. I shall briefly respond to my right hon. Friend.
With all due respect, the question whether we would extradite to countries that have introduced penalties that are unacceptable to us—such as the death penalty—is bogus. This point has been made before, and it is not correct. In those circumstances, Britain seeks an assurance—a binding guarantee—that, if the person is found guilty, the death penalty will not be applied, and then we extradite. That has been our policy for some time.
In my first few weeks of moving to the Home Office, we had a case—I cannot remember its name—in which we extradited back to Morocco a student who had been accused of murder. Once we got a guarantee that he would not be executed if he was found guilty, he was extradited. That would not be any bar to extradition of people back to Thailand. If I may say so—without causing offence in international relations—some countries have no difficulty in taking rigorous action against drug dealers who are caught with drugs on them, but they seem to find enormous difficulty in taking action against perverts who abuse children.
We have not come to any conclusions on the review—we have severe doubts on the difficulties. I have taken every opportunity to point out the practical difficulties, not because I am prejudging the outcome of the review but because there are genuine difficulties. I do not want hon. Members to be under the impression that all we have to do is make a few changes to the law here and there, that Britain can then have extra-territorial jurisdiction, that a queue of perverts will be prosecuted in the British courts and found guilty, and that we will stamp out the problem. It would not work like that—although we all wish to God that it would.

Mr. Batiste: While I understand everything that my right hon. Friend has just said, I make the same comment that I made during the passage of the War Crimes Act 1991: given all the evidential difficulties, even if there are no successful prosecutions, it is still better to cause these perverts to live in fear that one day the hand will fall on their shoulders and they will be called to account for their deeds. If we do not put our laws in order to achieve that, they can come back to this country and regard it as a safe haven.

Mr. Maclean: If it worked on the basis that they would live in fear, there might be some considerable merit in what my hon. Friend says. However, I believe that they would not live in fear—they would see the law as ineffective, as it would be. If we have no prosecutions, or one prosecution every five years and it fails—as it possibly could—it would not strike terror into the hearts of potential paedophiles, molesters or those putting messages on the Internet.
To strike fear into the heart of potential criminals, we must have two things—as my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has been emphasising in his sentencing proposals. We must improve the likelihood—indeed, make it certain—that people who commit such offences will be caught, and the sentence must be adequate.
We have an adequate sentence in this country, but if, as I suspect, by extending and taking extra-territorial jurisdiction we would make no difference to the possibility of someone being caught and the case being proved in court, it would be a bogus exercise.
We are not dealing with rather thick criminals. Some of these people are the cleverest in the world. They spend their whole life hiding their activities from law enforcement authorities. If people of the rank of ambassador are being charged with offences, it is obvious that such people are not the thickest people in the world, whatever country they come from. Some very clever people indulge in these practices, and any person who travels 11,000 miles around the world to indulge in them will not easily be fooled by gesture legislation.
10.30 am
I hope that, if the review does conclude that we can take sensible further steps on extra-territorial jurisdiction, it will so recommend, because it shows that in practice we shall be able to make a difference. All right hon. and hon. Members want to do that. We do not want to spend our Fridays passing legislation for the fun of it or as gesture politics. We want to make a difference.
For the present, extra-territorial jurisdiction is not the solution to the problem. It is right that the assumptions and opinions that underlie our concerns about extra-territorial jurisdiction are from time to time tested to discover whether they remain valid. That is why we have had the wide-ranging interdepartmental review announced by the Home Secretary on 1 February.
I can assure the House that my right hon. and learned Friend will carefully consider the report of that review. If it suggests that it is possible for us to enforce extra-territorial jurisdiction in the specific circumstances of sexual offences against children, I am sure that he, I, everyone in the Government and the whole House will want and expect us to act, and we shall not be backward in coming forward.
The Government condemn, without question, the activities of those monsters who prey on innocent children. We shall strive to take any measure we can to combat that dreadful trade—provided that it can be seen to be effective. The measure will be effective when the amendments are made.
I hope that hon. Members will understand from what I have had said that the amendments will complete the shield that the Bill will provide to prevent the abuse of children. I support the amendments, and the Government support them. I hope that all hon. Members will do so, so that the Bill will be as effective as possible in its aim to deter those who wish to use this country as a base to plan their evil activities.
I commend the amendments to the House.

Mr. Michael: I intend to be brief, but the debate has ranged over not only the two amendments but most of the other essential issues arising from the Bill.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) on tabling the amendments, and the Minister on responding so positively to them. I am grateful especially because the amendments respond to the arguments that I and my hon. Friends made in Committee, and they bridge what we felt was a massive gap in the Bill, despite its good intentions. The amendments are of great importance in making the Bill an effective piece of legislation and in enabling it—as the Minister suggests we all seek to do—to make a difference.
Parliament has been at its best in dealing with the Bill. We had sensible but searching debates in Committee, in which many genuine arguments were made. The quality of that debate is reflected in the amendments before us. It was a worthwhile Committee stage, in which we tackled serious issues. We hoped to extend the Bill's scope and impact. That is why debate in Committee focused on extra-territoriality, on making it possible to catch the actions of offenders—especially of British citizens abroad—and on tackling incitement.
As the Minister suggested, the amendments take a considerable step down the road of making the intentions of Parliament effective in relation to incitement and conspiracy, and the activities of those who seek to promote and be involved in such unspeakable activities.
The amendments are central to making the Bill effective in that they close off the possibility of convolutions of communication to evade the intentions of the Bill as originally drafted; they toughen the Bill. The test of the Bill's success will not be the number of prosecutions alone but the certainty among the paedophile community—if we can call it that—that the powers are sufficient and prosecution is likely. The object is to prevent such activity, and success in preventing the activity will be success for the Bill.
Several references were made to extra-territoriality. The example of the War Crimes Act 1991 comes to mind. We would not regard Parliament as having been wrong or consider that the 1991 Act had failed if there were no successful prosecutions. It would still be right, because the principle was right, the intention was right and Parliament was right to pass it. The question is, what should Parliament do about the activities of our citizens abroad, and how should we extend the law? That is what the Home Secretary's inquiry is supposed to be about, and the House needs to debate the question as soon as possible.
We want the Government to go further—if not by extending territoriality, in other ways. Extradition is insufficient, for reasons that I gave in Committee and shall not repeat. The economy and tourism of some countries may receive a devastating impact if they exercise the rights through agreement of extradition, so it is not as simple for them as it would be for us if it arose from the activities of one of our nationals abroad.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) has emphasised several times, we need to find ways of ensuring that we act in concert with the international community to make our actions effective, whether through international agreements, international law or international action. I hope that the Minister will ensure that we are represented and involved in some of the international meetings and conventions that aim to improve the quality of action on such matters by the international community.

Mr. Garnier: The hon. Gentleman has hit the point. If we wish to move into extra-territoriality, the way to do so is by international co-operation, by conventions such as the Tokyo convention and other conventions allowing courts in this country to extend their jurisdiction to, for example, offences in aeroplanes over other people's jurisdictions. That is the way to do it—not to introduce extra-territoriality into the Bill, but to reach agreement and become party to a convention, and then introduce that convention into English law.

Mr. Michael: It does not help to extend that debate as we debate the Bill. Those steps should be taken, and we would urge the Government to take them. Extra-territoriality needs to be debated; we debated it in Committee. I believe that all members of the Committee accepted that we could not push further on the Bill without risking the Bill itself, and that it was important to proceed with the Bill with the improvements that have been accepted today, get it on the statute book and make that great improvement. Without today's amendments, we should not have regarded the measure as effective, but it now becomes effective.
The debate about extra-territoriality—whether we should proceed by combined international action or international statute or convention, and whether extra-territoriality in British law can and should play a part—should be left to another day. I urge the Minister to ensure that the outcome of the inquiries and discussion set in place by the Home Secretary is brought before the House for proper discussion as soon as possible, so that we can all share in a discussion of the pros and cons.
I have no doubt that, as the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) suggests, there is a downside to that line of approach. We want to ensure that, if that line of approach is rejected, other measures are put in place to ensure that we are effective in the international community. That point unites us across the Floor of the House. I do not want to develop that discussion now, although it should be held as soon as possible. Today, we should welcome the fact that we are moving forward. Enforcement is a different matter from what we seek to enforce, and we are dealing with the second of those issues.
I am pleased that the discussions have extended into how we deal with the Internet. It is clear that the Internet presents a range of new opportunities for the promotion of such activities. If material is made available on the Internet, it should not allow someone to evade the intention of United Kingdom law. Our responsibility in relation to our citizens' activities will be covered by the amendments.
The freedoms of the Internet need to be balanced by powers to deal with the misuse of that freedom; rights and freedoms must be balanced against responsibilities. I am pleased that the amendments recognise that fact; they are simple and straightforward, and achieve, in a stylish way, the intentions that we sought to press in Committee.
We have taken a step forward, and are speeding the Bill on its way with the two amendments; I hope that the Minister will soon say, not just that he and the Home Secretary have had many interesting discussions and agonised over the midnight oil, but how the UK can fulfil its international obligations—particularly in relation to our citizens—in its attempts to end the vile trade and activities of paedophiles. I hope that the House will tackle the issues that the Minister tells us that he and his officials


have been addressing—the question whether or not an extension into extra-territorial jurisdiction is appropriate. We must hold that debate, and I hope that the Minister will ensure that the House will be able to have it at the earliest possible date.

Sir Michael Neubert: If our discussions so far have raised a number of different aspects, it is because the amendments represent the quintessence of the purpose of the legislation and the problems that go with it. My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) was right to say in introducing the amendments that the Bill needs to take account of changing technology. There is no question but that the law and the legal advice which follows it usually move at a much slower rate than technological advances.
Statute law moves at a ponderous pace. My right hon. Friend the Minister has said that he has confidence in the robustness of common law to cope with the challenge of changing circumstances and conditions, but when making legislation in this place we tend to lumber behind and do not keep up to date with the most novel, shrewd and devilishly clever developments associated with so many of the greatest minds in this country and elsewhere. I support the amendments and I particularly welcome the fact that in two words—"however communicated"—we can identify any means of communication and make it an offence if an act of incitement is committed through a message sent from one country to any part of the United Kingdom.
I yield to no one in the degree of distaste and abhorrence that I feel for the sexual abuse of children, which lies at the heart of the Bill. I wish to see such evil eradicated at the earliest possible moment, wherever it occurs in the world. My role in the debates—on Second Reading, in Committee and on Report—has inevitably been to be something of a damp blanket on the fires of enthusiasm of so many hon. Members. I find myself to one side of my colleagues from Yorkshire, which is a rare experience for me, particularly in relation to my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison), for whose views I have so much sympathy and whom I support on most occasions. I have reservations about how far the Bill can go in dealing with the problem of extra-territoriality.
My right hon. Friend the Minister has stressed the importance of certainty. We must have regard not only to ourselves, but to public opinion outside this place. Nothing undermines the confidence of the British people in their Parliament more than when we assert that we can achieve things—through law, declaration or decision in this House—and the public later find that the law falls short of their expectations. There is considerable danger in not recognising that the Bill, welcome as it is and commendable as the efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South are in introducing it, has a limited contribution to make in combating the scourge of child abuse elsewhere in the world.

Mr. Congdon: I have listened carefully to my hon. Friend's concerns about bringing the House into disrepute, but does he share my concern about an opposing aspect? The fact that the House has been unable

to go further in terms of extra-territoriality has led many people to send postcards to hon. Members asking why we are doing nothing about this vile and evil trade. It is difficult to strike the right balance when reassuring public opinion.

Sir Michael Neubert: It is a difficult balance to strike, but it is made more difficult because those postcards—a number of which I have received from my constituents—do not bear the sender's name and address. Hon. Members are therefore denied the opportunity to write to explain their position and the difficulties that they face. We can merely issue general press releases, which probably do not reach those people. That is one message which should get through, but does not, and I have expressed my regret about it on more than one occasion. The postcards raise a number of serious questions and may not contain factually correct information.
Extra-territoriality is the essence of the Bill. We are dealing with crimes committed abroad, particularly in countries without our centuries of tradition, whose legal systems are less developed than ours and where it is much more difficult to deal with such problems. A number of references have been made to the War Crimes Act 1991—the recent and most relevant example of claiming extra-territoriality. I have expressed reservations about that legislation. I supported it in principle, as did many others, but I have the gravest doubts about its effectiveness in practice. Since our discussions in Committee, the first charges have been brought against a man in this country for offences committed abroad during the second world war. We now await the outcome of that case. Millions of pounds have already been spent in bringing that man to court and the police exercise involved has made huge demands on already limited resources, but there is no guarantee that even that one case will achieve a conviction. We must therefore act responsibly when proposing legislation calling for extra-territoriality which has little chance of success.
The amendments are optimistic. Let us consider the technical aspect of the message. How feasible is it that we should be able to identify the messages and identify an offence? How would they be identified, whether on the Internet or on the telephone? Are we to tap everyone's telephone to find out how individual calls are gauged? Even the word "message" raises difficulties. I do not believe that a simple statement of fact could be held to be a message without a great deal of circumstantial evidence. A message must mean the conveying of a sentiment from one person to another, not a neutral statement of fact. There would be scope in court to mount a defence against a simple bulletin board, which might be described as such, but could be presented as something quite different.
What about the scope of the Internet? Like many of my hon. Friends, I am not the most technically qualified. However, I understand that the Internet contains a wealth of information beyond imagining. Who will scan that vast amount of information to identify the offence dealt with in the amendments? We must be careful not to raise too many expectations.
As a non-lawyer, I find it difficult to accept the charge of incitement. I do not think that it is appropriate to the activity described. My understanding of "incitement" is reflected in the recent events in Brixton, when the lawyer Rudy Narayan addressed a crowd in the street and threatened retribution against the police for the death of a


man in custody. His remarks caused an outbreak of rioting in the streets and damage to property. I believe that that is an example of incitement.
The sexual abuse of children does not involve someone going on to the streets and inciting otherwise normal people to comply: it is a case of seeking willing—indeed eager—partners to engage in the evil practice of child abuse. If two willing parties wish to come together through the Internet or by telephone, it will be extraordinarily difficult to identify whether incitement has occurred. In a simple information exchange, the charge of incitement will be difficult to nail down.
Nevertheless, I am anxious that the Bill should achieve as much as it can and I support the amendments. In describing the Bill as a "shield" for the protection of children around the world—to quote my right hon. Friend the Minister—we must be modest in our aspirations and not allow ourselves to be carried beyond the realms of reality.

Lady Olga Maitland: I give my wholehearted support to the amendments—they are so important that it is extraordinary that the provisions were not included in the Bill in the first place. How can we contemplate taking tough action to curb the sexual abuse of children by tourists if we deal with only half the issue? Clearly, the means by which such people communicate with each other is the key to the Bill.
I find it difficult to comprehend the sheer scale of the sexual exploitation. Most people find it hard to believe that paedophiles are sophisticated and devious people who will go to any lengths and use any means to achieve their ends. Although the amendments try to close any loopholes through which such people could dodge, weave and dive in an attempt to achieve their evil objectives, I endorse the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Sir M. Neubert) who said that we should not get too excited about the Bill being the whole answer, as it is only part of a package that may have to be addressed later with other legislation.
I accept that it will be difficult to prove and to find positive evidence that people have sent offensive material electronically. Earlier today I raised the question of telephone calls. Will hearsay evidence of a telephone call be admissible, or may telephone calls be intercepted, thereby taking us into a difficult area? Perhaps there should be some cut-off point at which we say that, because an alleged offence is so terrible, we should consider that course of action. Faxes are tangible objects that may be presented as evidence. I believe that messages by fax can also be intercepted, but I am not sure how.

Mr. John Marshall: People can send them to the wrong number.

Lady Olga Maitland: Yes, but they would then be categorised as unsolicited material. As my right hon. Friend the Minister pointed out, if one is the innocent recipient of such material, one is not liable to be charged with any offence.
All hon. Members have referred to the fact that the Internet—which I believe may become a modern curse—is too vast and it is all too easy to surf the system and pursue one's own ends. Although we have the power to make it an offence to receive or pick up offensive material from the Internet, I am concerned that it will be extremely

difficult to produce evidence of that act. How do we link the material with a prosecution? I am not saying that the provision should not be in the Bill—it should be on the face of the legislation—but we must recognise the problem that my hon. Friend the Member for Romford pointed out. The Bill may not be the complete answer, although it is a very important step.
I urge hon. Members to cast their eye over the schedule of listed sexual offences. Any normal, decent human being who reads that list would shudder with horror—it highlights the fact that we must make the Bill work effectively. For instance, the Bill will deal with crimes of rape under the Sexual Offences Act 1956. Those offences include intercourse with a girl under the age of 13, intercourse with a girl under the age of 16, buggery, and indecent assault on a boy or a girl. When confronted with such a list, no normal human being could be other than utterly determined to protect our young people.
Children should be able to trust adults. When that trust is abused, we have a moral obligation to protect them in whatever way we can. Although there may be some doubts about the efficacy of the amendments, it is prudent to include them. We should remember that we are talking about children's trust. The amendments are important because they toughen the Bill and cause paedophiles concern that they may be caught. If the measures act as a deterrent, well and good. If they help us to catch sex offenders, even better: I believe that they deserve to roast in hell, and they certainly have the worst time of it in jail where sex offenders are shown no mercy. The amendments are welcome if they help to bring evil men to justice.

Mr. Batiste: I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate, for a number of reasons. First and foremost, I express my strong support for the legislation, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) on selecting a Bill with such a worthwhile aim. It is relatively rare to win in the private Members' Bills ballot—I have not managed it during several years in this place—and my hon. Friend may be satisfied in the knowledge that he will have put on the statute book provisions that will make a significant difference to the lot of those around the world who suffer as a consequence of the actions of depraved, criminal perverts.
Having said that, I can give the Bill only two cheers, as I believe that it should go much further. We shall have to return to the issue with other more extensive legislation in the future.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that we are not yet on Third Reading. We are debating two amendments.

Mr. Batiste: I appreciate that, Madam Deputy Speaker. However, my opening comments remove the need for me to make a speech on Third Reading. I shall now turn to the specific points arising from the amendments.
The amendments improve the Bill quite specifically because they reach, albeit tentatively, into the issue of extra-territoriality and extend the remit of the Bill to electronic communications. Without either of those steps forward, the Bill would be much more restricted.
I have long been involved with extra-territoriality and Internet issues. "Extra-territoriality" is a tongue twister which is much easier to pronounce at 11 o'clock in the morning than at 11 o'clock at night, and it covers a wide range of complex issues. In the early to mid-1980s, the Americans sought to use it as an excuse for imposing their domestic legislation on other countries and, along with many other hon. Members, I fought strongly against that.
11 am
There is legislation on our statute book to enable British companies and individuals to resist the extra-territorial demands of countries such as the United States. It has therefore been assumed that extra-territoriality meant the imposition by one country of its views on others, but times have changed and extra-territoriality now means something quite different, as it does in the context of today's debate. In terms of the development of the thinking of the House of Commons, it went a great deal further when we introduced the War Crimes Bill. A number of hon. Members who are here today were, with me, strong supporters of the War Crimes Bill.
The rationale behind that measure and the reason why so many of us want this Bill to progress is that, whatever the problems are—and we accept that there are problems in relation to evidence and bringing a case within the confines of the procedures of the British courts—nevertheless, in today's world, with its rapid communications, electronic media and the internationalisation of crime, there must be a residual responsibility on a state such as ours to punish its citizens for serious crimes that they commit overseas.
It may not be a primary responsibility, because it is better for such crimes to be punished in the country where they are committed, but if for any reason that is impractical or impossible, or if extradition is impracticable, we in Britain should be able to undertake criminal proceedings. At the end of the day, those who commit serious crimes—particularly crimes which affect small children in distant parts of the world who are unable to protect themselves and whose Governments may not be able to protect them—should not be able to return to Britain and see it as a safe haven in which to plan and plot further trips in future.
I accept what my right hon. Friend the Minister said about the importance of trying to establish the certainty and success of prosecution and imposing serious penalties on those being convicted. Given those reservations, the difference between what my right hon. Friend said this morning, and what I, other hon. Members and many people in Britain believe, is that there is also a declaratory role for the law. Many paedophiles have a status in society and are afraid of exposure. In some circumstances, the fact that there is a mechanism in place which could bring them to book will be a powerful means of protecting some of the most vulnerable people in the world.
I have spoken out on many occasions against extra-territoriality as a form of legislative colonialism which seeks to impose the domestic laws of one country upon other countries, but this is a different and benign manifestation of extra-territoriality in which we seek to ensure that our citizens observe the laws of this land and do not regard Britain as a safe base from which to commit

serious crimes overseas in the belief that they can escape retribution in the countries where those crimes are committed.
I now turn briefly to the Internet. Although the amendments before us are entirely sound in relation to newspaper articles, advertisements, letters and telephone calls, where there is a clear connection between the person sending a message and the person receiving it, the Internet creates entirely new and complex problems for law makers. The Internet opens up free speech around the world in electronic form. I do not believe that it is possible or practicable—although some people say it might be—to prevent that, and to try to do so would be to deny free speech. However, if people break the law in the context of expressing themselves they should be punished for it.
I see no reason why my determination to protect people's right to self-expression on the Internet should not be coupled with an equal determination that those who abuse the right to free speech through the electronic media should be punished. It may be technologically difficult, but I am sure that the technology will develop alongside the Government's determination to make sure that the electronic media are not abused. We protect the right of free speech, but there are a series of criminal offences relating to its misuse to incite riots, to which reference has been made, and other crimes. I see no reason why the same framework should not apply to the Internet.
I have looked carefully at the drafting of the amendments, and although I was delighted to hear the clear assurances from my right hon. Friend the Minister that he believes that the amendments extend the legislation to the Internet, I am not quite so sure about that. In particular, the amendment refers to
a message … sent or received in England and Wales".
I find it difficult to see how we can express in such geographical terms a message that is put on a bulletin board by a person in Bangkok, for example, which does not exist in any physical form, but merely in electronic form, and which can be accessed by any person around the world.
I am not sure that such a message is ever "received". It would have been better to express it in terms of a message being read by a person in the United Kingdom, as that would have little or no ambiguity. I do not profess any real expertise in the drafting of such legislation, but I hope that the assurance that my right hon. Friend has given is correct.

Mr. Garnier: Would the use of the word "published", as it applies in the law of defamation, be of assistance? In that sense, it means making known to a third party. Would that be of assistance to my hon. Friend?

Mr. Batiste: We are fortunate to have available free of charge the advice of one of the most eminent barristers in the country on such matters. I am sure that my hon. and learned Friend's wise words will be taken on board by my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South, who has done such a splendid job in promoting the Bill, to see whether there is a weakness that could be addressed.
It is clear that, throughout the House and throughout the country, there is a strong determination that we should live up to our obligations under article 34 of the United Nations convention to prevent the sexual exploitation of children around the world. The Bill takes a small step in that direction, and for that reason I strongly welcome it. Nevertheless, further steps need to be taken. If the


Government, in their review of the issue of extra-territoriality, can go a step further, there will be a wide welcome for further legislation.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 6

SCOTTISH PROVISION

Amendment made: No. 2, in page 4, line 26, at end insert—
`() Any act of incitement by means of a message (however communicated) is to be treated as done in Scotland if the message is sent or received in Scotland'.—[Mr. John Marshall.]

Order for Third Reading read.

Mr. John Marshall: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I hope that I am reflecting the mood of the House when I say that, following our debates on Second Reading, in Committee and on Report, I detect widespread support for the Bill coupled with a feeling of regret that it may not go as far in some respects as some of my colleagues would like. One of the things that appals the whole country is the depths of depravity to which some individuals will go and the extent of the problem in certain other countries.
An article in The Times on 10 April stated that some 200,000 Nepalese children had been sold into sexual slavery in India. It stated that, in Thailand, as many as a quarter of a million children were in brothels and that, in Colombia, one third of all prostitutes were thought to be under the age of 14. One could go on and refer to countries such as Romania where many children become prostitutes at an age at which, in this country, one would hope that they enjoyed the innocence of childhood.
Those countries have a great deal to do. They must realise that the good of their children and the future of their country must come before taking a few cheap bucks from disgusting western tourists. That is the problem with which they have to deal, but we must try to help them. I do not pretend that the passage of the Bill will put an end to the disgraceful activities of British child molesters who travel abroad to pursue their disgusting activities. It will not. I suspect that, at the end of the day, there is nothing that we can do to stop some of them, but we can certainly make it more difficult for them. We can ensure that individuals in this country who seek to make a trade or a business out of encouraging other people to molest young children find it much more difficult to do so.
Those who attended the Second Reading debate will remember that I referred to a publication that was going around Hampshire. People were paying a large amount to get a guide to sexual holidays in the far east and Latin America. I was pleased to hear that, the week after the Bill received its Second Reading, the individuals who had been distributing the publication decided that it had become too hot to handle and took it out of circulation. We have done some good already.
I shall briefly remind the House of what the Bill does, clause by clause. Clause 1 makes it an offence to conspire in England and Wales to commit certain sexual offences against children abroad. Conspiracy means agreement on a course of conduct. It would certainly include

arrangements between a tour operator and a client to provide travel facilities where an acknowledged purpose of the trip was the sexual abuse of children. But the clause goes much wider than that.
Many of these creatures, although they make their own arrangements for travel and accommodation, plan their trips with others of their kind. It is not unknown for a group of paedophiles to talk in the United Kingdom about what they might do when they go to, for example, Thailand, Romania, Colombia or Peru. They plan their trip, and then go abroad and engage in their disgraceful activities.
Clause 1 also sets certain conditions which must be satisfied before the conspiracy amounts to an offence under our laws. The conspiracy must lead to an act or event taking place outside the United Kingdom. That, of course, is what the Bill is all about. If the act or event contemplated takes place in this country, the conspiracy is already an offence. The act or event must be an offence in the country in which it is intended to take place. That is the so-called dual criminality test, and it is an important safeguard because we must recognise that the age of consent is different in, for example, various European Community countries.
We in Parliament rightly consider that it is our function to pass laws that apply in the territory of the United Kingdom. We would take great exception if the law-making body of another country attempted to pass laws that would apply here. If, for example, an Arab country where drink was forbidden made it an offence for someone to go to Scotland and have a glass of the local nectar, we would regard that as offensive against our laws and against that great industry. I am sure that no one agrees with that point more strongly than my right hon. Friend the Minister.
The intended act must amount to conduct that falls within the scope of the sexual offences against children set out in the schedule. The final condition is that some part of the conspiracy, but not necessarily all the conduct that constitutes the offence, must take place in England and Wales. I think that it would be better to say the United Kingdom—and long may it remain a united kingdom—because all parts of it are covered by the Bill. The hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Mr. Hogg) made the good point in Committee that the Bill emphasises the need for a United Kingdom Parliament. If we had a devolved Scottish Assembly legislating on Scottish matters, there could be different rules in England and Wales, and in Scotland. I note the way in which hon. Members intervened on that issue.
Clause 2 makes it an offence to incite another person to commit certain sexual acts against children abroad. Incitement is the act of encouraging others to do something. The amendments to which we agreed earlier have strengthened the powers in the Bill. People who use informative advertising, as they would call it, by putting messages on the Internet will now be covered by the Bill. The Bill could include advertising material in the case of tour operators. However, if two or more perverts discuss where to go to indulge in their activities, any encouragement one gives to the other may well amount to incitement.
The other clauses give the law enforcement agencies a good chance of erecting a substantial barrier against these disgusting activities. The penalties under the Bill are substantial, and for certain acts of conspiracy the penalty could amount to life imprisonment. That shows how strong and tough the legislation can be.
If we are to put a stop to those disgusting activities and children of eight, nine and 10 being sold into a life of sexual perversion at a time when they should not know anything about sex, it is up to the Governments of these countries to move. We have seen that they are willing to move strongly against the drug trade. They must move just as strongly against prostitution by young 10, 11 and 12-year-olds.
It is up to the Governments of Thailand, the Philippines and Latin America to say that they want to stop that disgusting trade and that they put the future of their children first. Those Governments must ensure that their children lead a decent life, rather than having the whole of their lives blackened by activities that take place when they are so young. They should not be affected by the disgusting perverts who travel to other countries and who engage in such disgraceful behaviour.
Some lives may be so blackened by those individuals that the children involved lead a very short life, because they may be infected. If they are not infected physically, their morale and their psyche are infected for the rest of their days. Anything that the House can do to put a stop to that trade and to penalise those wicked individuals who seek to make money out of it is to be welcomed. I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Cox: I pay the warmest tribute to the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall). Many of us regard him as a good friend, and he has done a great service to the House and to the country by presenting the Bill. We all know, whatever part of the country we represent, about the correspondence that we receive from constituents calling for tough legislation. Nothing sickens people more than the sexual exploitation of children and, especially, the behaviour of nationals from our country who travel abroad solely to engage in the abuse of young people. We also know, because the point was made by many hon. Members on Second Reading, in which countries those practices take place.
We have also had information circulated to us by highly respected organisations that have long campaigned for major changes in legislation, not only in our country but throughout the world. No organisation has been more involved than the United Nations Children's Fund. UNICEF has done superb work for many years, not only to reduce the sexual abuse of young people but to improve the general overall welfare of young people and children throughout the world.
As I said on Second Reading, I am one of the members of the House's delegation to the Council of Europe. I serve on the Social, Health and Family Affairs Committee and, at the time of Second Reading, as the rapporteur I had just completed and presented the strategy for children to the Assembly of the Council of Europe. That strategy was fully supported by UNICEF and I was greatly aided by that organisation, which sent officials from the United States to work with me and other colleagues in Strasbourg on that important legislation. In view of the importance of the Bill, it is interesting that the European strategy for children had overwhelming and virtually unanimous support from every member state of the Council of Europe. That is now a large organisation embracing not only the countries of western Europe but virtually all the countries from central Europe, including the new Russia.
In Strasbourg next week, next Thursday and Friday, there will be a two-day conference—a world congress—on the sexual exploitation of children, organised by the Council of Europe and UNICEF. That is why the Bill is so important.

Lady Olga Maitland: When the hon. Gentleman goes to Strasbourg, will he raise with his colleagues the issue of extra-territorial jurisdiction? Can the hon. Gentleman tell the House how other countries are working on that issue?

Mr. Cox: The hon. Lady makes an important point. Many of the points that she has made in her interventions have been raised by many other hon. Members. I did not table any amendments to the Bill, but I sympathised very much with the feelings of other hon. Members that what was proposed did not go far enough. I will come on to the points that the hon. Lady has raised. Next Friday, I will chair the congress's session and I will certainly seek to raise her points.
The Council of Europe and UNICEF regard the conference as very important. Senior politicians from European countries will attend, as will senior officers from Interpol. UNICEF officers will attend from the United States and a senior judge of the European Court of Human Rights will attend and speak. That shows the great importance that is attached to the conference.
Many of the subjects that the hon. Member for Hendon, South has raised on Second Reading, in Committee and today are connected to the issues that we will discuss next week. The sessions of the conference will cover
sexual exploitation, pornography and prostitution of, and trafficking in, children and young adults".
The Minister of State has an opportunity today to give the House some idea of the Government's involvement in the conference. I am sure that we are all pleased that the Bill is in no way a party issue. Sadly, we often destroy good private Members' Bills, irrespective of who has introduced them, because party politics come into play. Thankfully, that has not happened to the Bill so far, and I do not intend to do that today. The Bill is far too important for anyone to indulge in that kind of behaviour, but it is important that we learn what attitude the Government will take to the conference next week.
Hon. Members have spoken today about the ways in which information is now circulated. I remember the impressive speech made on Second Reading by the right hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Alison), who has made one or two interventions this morning. No doubt he will speak later if he catches your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker. The right hon. Gentleman outlined the type of information and publicity that is sent out by companies, and I was delighted to learn from the hon. Member for Hendon, South that, after comments made on Second Reading, one company decided that enough was enough and that it could not continue to operate. I hope that we will hear about more such decisions by such companies.
We have also heard about the Internet. Many of us have some idea of how it works, but the extent of the power base now being established must concern all hon. Members.
In our previous debate, the Minister fairly answered interventions and outlined the real difficulties that face Britain and other countries trying to take action, but which are restricted by current laws. I hope that this Bill is but the first of many that will help to overcome that problem.
Item 10 on today's Order Paper is the Second Reading of the Sexual Offences against Children (Registers of Offenders) Bill, to be introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Ms Anderson). I hope that there will be some progress with that Bill because it ties in closely with this Bill and the efforts of the hon. Member for Hendon, South. When I speak to those who work with young children, such as probation officers, the police and UNICEF, they say that a register would provide them with a wide base from which to operate against offenders. Although that Bill will not be reached today, I hope that, when it comes before the House in the coming weeks, it will be given a fair chance of progress.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but I must remind him of the rule that Third Reading debates deal with the contents of the Bill before the House.

Mr. Cox: I fully accept your comments, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I will not pursue my point. I simply wished to draw the attention of the House to the fact that we will shortly discuss another Bill that is relevant to the Bill that we are discussing.

Mr. Michael: Several times during the passage of the Bill, hon. Members have paid tribute to the work done by my hon. Friend, on our behalf, in the international arena. It is important to know what image we present on this Bill and wider. Is the United Kingdom seen as being active enough in the area in which my hon. Friend plays a leading role in debate?

Mr. Cox: My hon. Friend's question is interesting. I have already referred to the two-day conference in Strasbourg next week. That has been in the making for a long time; it was not a thought that suddenly popped into someone's mind a month ago. I have the provisional agenda for the conference, and I regret to say that it appears that no British Minister will attend.

Mr. Maclean: No Minister will attend the conference next week because it is a planning meeting for civil servants. The Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Mr. Kirkhope), will attend the conference proper at Stockholm in August, and he will play a leading role.

Mr. Cox: I had intended to question the Minister on that point, so I am delighted to hear his assurance that a Minister will attend the Stockholm conference. I do not want to pursue the matter at great length, but I must point out that senior Ministers from other countries will attend the conference in Strasbourg next week. I referred to the Stockholm conference on Second Reading. I shall attend as the Council of Europe representative.
Delegates' speeches, which give a clear outline of Governments' thinking on any issue, are important, but so are the informal discussions and meetings that take place. At Stockholm in August and, I hope, in Strasbourg next week, the important points raised by the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) will be dealt with, not only in the papers presented by speakers but in informal discussions among colleagues from all countries.

Mr. Maclean: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way again. He has been kind and even-handed in

his remarks. He pointed out the importance of politicians attending conferences. Perhaps he will take this opportunity to put on the record a tribute to the National Criminal Intelligence Service, which picks up where politicians leave off and pursue paedophiles around the world to bring them to justice. Can he tell us, from his experience and knowledge, whether any other country in Europe has a criminal intelligence service as dedicated or as experienced as the NCIS in this activity or as good at bringing paedophiles to book?

Mr. Cox: I readily join the Minister in congratulating and appreciating the work of the NCIS. I am delighted that Britain is in the forefront of such work. However, other countries are also deeply involved. All countries need to put proper machinery into operation. That is why a senior official from Interpol will attend the conference at Strasbourg next week.
I warmly congratulate the hon. Member for Hendon, South on introducing the Bill. It deals with an issue on which much work still needs to be done—and, I am sure, will be done by hon. Members of all parties. As I have said, it is not a party issue. There is enormous support from organisations in this country. We also have the support of our fellow countries in Europe and others around the world. I hope that the Bill will become law. As has already been said, it will be the first of many further such Bills aimed at preventing the appalling abuse that, sadly, is carried out by our nationals and those of many other countries against often totally defenceless young children.

Mr. David Evans: I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) on bringing the Bill before the House.
I was tempted to make a modest contribution by what my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) said on Second Reading:
You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, almost certainly agree that nearly every aspect of the sexual abuse and molestation of children is shocking, and often unimaginably shocking. It is sometimes too painful even to bear contemplation. I think of the picture of the child chained to a bed and burnt to death in a massage parlour that was incinerated, by accident or by design, in an Asian country. That is what the police found. There is an almost unimaginably horrific dimension to the abuse of children, but that is what we are dealing with. Our motivation for sitting on comfortable green Benches on a Friday, with spring approaching, in an advanced western country, is the thought of that child chained to a bed and burnt to death."—[Official Report, 2 February 1996; Vol. 270, c. 1238.]
The Bill deals with a disturbing aspect of late 20th century society—the increase in the sex trade, and in particular paedophilia, which I describe as child molesting.
Only recently, society has received a stark reminder of the behaviour of paedophiles. Although Thomas Hamilton, who was responsible for the Dunblane massacre, was not a convicted paedophile, he has been linked to a paedophile ring. Tightening the laws surrounding paedophiles is a must. Police superintendents in England and Wales want convicted paedophiles to be forced to notify the authorities when they change their name or address so that they cannot slip back into society under an assumed identity and subject other youngsters to abuse.
The House should support the Bill. It should certainly refrain from indulging in arguments about the rights of perverts. It is important that we view paedophilia and paedophiles in context, always remembering that the civil liberties of children must come before those of paedophiles. How often, to our extreme frustration and that of the general public, do judges and magistrates seem to favour the criminal, and victims feel that the punishment did not fit the crime? I very much hope that, when a paedophile is committed to prison for a life sentence, it is a life sentence.
People say to me, "He killed my daughter because he was drunk and driving his car. His sentence was to lose his licence for three years, and two years' probation." The sentence should have been 15 years in prison, because, in my book, he committed murder. Or I hear people say, "He raped my daughter, but the judge said, 'Send him on a holiday, the girl will soon get over it.'" Yes, we are now tackling the problem with longer prison sentences, but will the judges give the maximum sentence?
Why not castrate paedophiles and rapists straight away? Then the taxpayer would not have to foot the bill, and there would be more room in prisons for other offenders. In my view, convicted paedophiles should suffer the same fate as rapists.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South seeks to make it an offence to conspire to commit, or incite a person to commit, certain sexual acts with children abroad. The focus of the Bill is on stopping those who operate in the evil world of sexual exploitation of children, and limiting the opportunities of any would-be participants. As the country's lawmakers, we cannot simply turn a blind eye to the organisations which operate outside the United Kingdom, and arrange for financial benefit trips to third-world countries for men to violate children.
It is important that we as Members of Parliament send a strong signal to society that such behaviour will not be tolerated. That signal should not merely restrict the trade but end it completely.
To date, the Government have transformed the legal position in England and Wales with a series of tough new controls on videos, indecent displays, sex shops and child pornography. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary's Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, which proved so controversial, introduced measures designed to tighten enforcement of the obscene publications legislation, including provisions to extend and clarify the law to cover simulated child pornography manufactured and stored on computer, ensure that improper transmissions were covered by the Obscene Publications Act 1959, and give the police new powers to arrest without warrant those who dealt in obscene material, and new powers of search and seizure.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South has introduced a Bill which continues in this vein, building on successive Conservative reforms to stamp out subversive and perverse behaviour. The aim of the Bill is that the operators and organisers as well as the participants would be found liable. I believe that that is right. We should make those who promote paedophilia subject to the same tough sentences as those who practise it.
Parliament should look closely at the means available to operators to promote and attract business. I am primarily concerned with the magazines that lie on the top shelves of newsagents nationwide. The porn industry has been one of the growth industries of the past 20 years. Newsagents, both independent and high-street branches—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. May I remind the hon. Gentleman of the point that I made not many minutes ago? The content of the Bill is the only proper matter for consideration on Third Reading. The hon. Gentleman is going rather wide of that.

Mr. Evans: May I point out that Ann Mayne of the Campaign Against Pornography highlighted how pornographic magazines were used by operators to promote such holidays? Access is easy; curbing it is difficult. As a country and a society, we adhere to the principles of freedom of speech, and we already have in place tough laws on obscene publications.

Sir Michael Neubert: In the context of the remarks that my hon. Friend has just made, will he with me deplore the apparent new practice of W. H. Smith of sending such magazines unsolicited to newsagents as part of a package of publications that they might sell? Is it not the role of a responsible public company to do rather better than that?

Mr. Evans: My hon. Friend hits the nail on the head. It is outrageous that such public companies should send directly to newsagents, with information that they should go on the top shelf in the shop, unsolicited magazines which encourage people to do exactly what we are trying to stop them doing. I agree with my hon. Friend's point.
I have also been informed that operators promote paedophilia through coded advertisements in the personal columns of broadsheets such as The Times. That complicates the issue, because it highlights the options available to operators to contact would-be clients, and makes the introduction of specific legislation very difficult. It also clouds the issue of legally proving guilt—defined as being a party to the conspiracy.
While adverts in pornographic magazines might be ambiguous or even overt, adverts in broadsheets will be coded and covert. That presents a problem in making those who publish advertisements promoting porn rings and sex holidays for paedophiles liable in the same sense—that they are a party to the conspiracy.
If adverts are covert and coded, publishers might not be aware of the true intentions of those who place them. Nevertheless, if advertisements are deemed by a judge to be sufficiently overt, it is only right that the title involved should be found guilty as a party to the conspiracy or incitement. Punishing not only the operators but those that carry advertisements that promote paedophilia is a necessary aspect of the drive to stop people profiting from the perverse fantasies of paedophiles.
That has two further implications. First, newspapers have an added responsibility for monitoring the advertisements that they wish to carry. Secondly, it provides an incentive for the publishers of pornographic magazines, the main channel for such information, to start regulating the advertisements that fill their pages.
One unfortunate but likely consequence of the Bill's introduction will be to drive operators even further underground. However, that is not a reason for not passing it. It may make guilt harder to prove, as operators will take more measures to cover their tracks and avoid explicitly declaring the true nature of trips abroad.
One of the focuses of the Bill is avoiding the use of the testimony of minors who have been violated. The focus is on proving beyond all reasonable doubt the guilt of suspected organisers and racketeers before fellow members of their ring or customers leave the country specifically to go on a pervert or paedophile holiday. If that cannot be ascertained, it seems inevitable that the investigating officers would require the testimony of minors from foreign countries to corroborate their evidence to prove guilt beyond all reasonable doubt. That would not necessarily defeat the object of the Bill, but it could be argued that it would undermine it.
The Bill relies on dual criminality. A would-be customer's conduct on a prearranged trip would need to violate the law of the land and that of England and Wales. For instance, organisers could send a person to Thailand on the understanding that young girls would be available, and arrange for girls of 15 years and upwards.
As 15 is the legal age of consent in Thailand, but is a year lower than in England and Wales, the Bill could not bring such operators to court. If men abroad then indulged in sex with girls under 15, that would be a case for the Thai authorities. The Bill makes no provision for a trial in the UK, as the organisers claimed that only girls over 15 years of age would be available.
Whether we should make men stand trial in the UK for such crimes, as opposed to allowing them to stand trial in the country concerned, is a vexed question. If the authorities involved will co-operate, it is largely irrelevant whether the case is heard in Britain or abroad. Without co-operative counterparts, our police force would be hampered in bringing a successful prosecution to court, in this country or any other.
There is a need to forge close co-operation at many levels for successful detection of such sex rackets. That statement appeals mainly to law enforcement agencies in other countries, whose record for co-operation leaves a lot to be desired. However, an effective working relationship between the agencies of law enforcement in the United Kingdom and other countries is essential if we are to be able to prove that operators in the United Kingdom are sending people on prearranged pervert or paedophile holidays.
The Conservative party is committed to giving the police the support necessary to convict criminals. I only hope that the same can be said for Opposition Members. I know that their record on that is patchy, to say the least. They too often seem to be concerned with the civil rights of criminals.

Mr. Michael: I realise that the hon. Gentleman has a reputation for introducing controversy where none exists, but the debates on the Bill have been constructive and cross-party. His partisan approach is not necessary, especially from a supporter of a Government who have doubled crime and allowed levels of violence to continue to rocket.

Mr. Evans: I do not wish to be controversial. There should be a greater sense of certainty and severity in

sentencing. The Conservative Government, and especially my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, have not forgotten that prisons should not be holiday camps. Prison regimes should be tough—so tough that criminals want to get out of prison, and not try to get back in as soon as they can.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman has rather a short memory. I said that he should deal only with the contents of the Bill on Third Reading.

Mr. Evans: On paedophiles, my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary—and I agree with every word—last December said:
The full force of the law must be used against the evil people who sexually exploit children for money.
It is an abhorrent activity. We must do all we can to prevent it and protect children everywhere.
We have looked carefully at the problem and have decided the most effective way our legal system can deal with it is to extend our laws on conspiracy and incitement.
The proposals aim to catch and punish those who organise sex tours or who encourage those who travel abroad for the purpose of sexually exploiting children.
These depraved people will face the same tough penalties as they would face if they had committed these offences here.
We are looking for a suitable legislative opportunity to take this forward.
The opportunity is here today. The House supports the Bill, and so do I.

Mrs. Llin Golding: I want briefly to say how strongly I support the Bill and all measures to protect children the world over.
The Bill was intended as a small step in dealing with this growing trade in human misery. Since it started its passage through the House, however—because of the strength of feeling and commitment of many organisations and individuals and, indeed, the determination of hon. Members and those in another place—it has been obvious that we need to convince the Government that small steps will not do. We need larger steps.
More and more Governments are implementing legislation to catch and prosecute those perverted individuals. For example, in Thailand, which has been an area of great child prostitution and abuse of children, the Thai Government are moving in the right direction. The changes there should help and support the implementation of the Bill and should help other Governments to eradicate child prostitution.
Three years ago, the former Prime Minister of Thailand declared that the priority policy of his Government was to eliminate child sexual abuse, child prostitution and forced prostitution. That policy was reconfirmed by the present Government. Their strong, clear policy has yielded many good results.
Brothels and entertainment places that provide children under 18 years old for commercial sex have been raided, and a number of people charged. A special task force has been set up to suppress commercial sex business, child sexual abuse and prostitution. A child's rights protection division has been established within the office of the Attorney-General to help child victims


and to monitor child sexual abuse cases. All those measures should help with the implementation of the Bill, and the Thai Government are introducing more legislation and employing more people to control that evil trade.
The Thai Government have introduced a penal code under which rape or molestation committed against a child who is not over 15 years of age, even with the child's consent, is statutory rape or molestation, and the perpetrator shall be separately punished for each act committed. That strengthens the law in Thailand, and enables police there to inform the Government here what is going on.
The penal code also stipulates that whoever has sexual intercourse with a girl who is not over 15 years of age, with or without her consent, shall be punished with imprisonment of four to 20 years. If the victimised girl is under 13, the sentence is imprisonment of seven to 20 years. It also stipulates that whoever commits an indecent act on a child—boy or girl—who is not over 15 years of age, with or without his or her consent, will be punished by imprisonment not exceeding 10 years.
The penal code has many other provisions. For example, if the procurer forces a girl to have sex with another, he or she is liable to be imprisoned for between 10 and 20 years. That will help bring this evil trade to an end.
I am sure that we will strongly support the Thai Government in what they are doing. Another important thing they have done is make it easier for children to give evidence. They are proceeding with video evidence and are assisting child witnesses. I think that they must have read the Piggott committee's report on the giving of evidence by children, because they are introducing many of its recommendations.
The Bill has focused the Government's attention on the need for legislation. I thank the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) for introducing it, and for doing all he has done to help rid the world of this problem.

Mr. Alison: I echo the words of the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding) congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) on taking on this prickly and, in many ways, disagreeable subject, plunging into the ramifications of the sphere with which we are dealing, nursing it through its gestation period in Committee and birth by Third Reading, and generally allowing himself to be exposed to the cold and hot winds of passion that blow from every quarter of the country and the House on him for sponsoring the Bill and seeing it safely on to the statute book.
I am sure that he and his constituents will be proud that his name will be associated—among a dazzling array of other initiatives and achievements that he has secured in the House—with this most necessary and desirable measure for the protection of people who are most vulnerable and unprotected.
One must also endorse and commend the Home Office and my right hon. Friend the Minister for his assiduousness in supporting and helping us to make the best of this measure in Committee. It is very much a sign of the Government's awareness of the strong case that could be

made for the very vexed extra-territoriality argument that they have encouraged and assisted in the production of this measure, precisely because they are so anxious that everything possible should be done to help, even if they have reservations about some of the practical matters. I should be among the first to commend my right hon. Friend for the way in which he has helped us in Committee and for the positive attitude he has taken on the matter of his review of extra-territoriality.
As my right hon. Friend the Minister is so open-minded and open-hearted, and has such an open personality that he finds it impossible—none of us finds it easy—to discern the slightest hint or suggestion of duplicity or of misleading anyone, because of his fundamental attitudes on these matters, I detect that he is really not a great enthusiast, prima facie, for the idea of extra-territoriality, unlike his right hon. Friend the Minister of State in another place, for example, who is quite an enthusiast in that sphere. I very much hope that my right hon. Friend will continue to keep a thoroughly and genuinely open mind on this issue; I know that he is capable of it.
We often discover that lifeboats on liners sail round the world for many years without the canvas being stripped off them and attempts being made to launch them. That is not an argument for not having lifeboats on a liner. I very much hope and believe that, if there is even the slightest chance of the efficacy of extra-territoriality being available and applied in this sphere, the fail-safe approach will be to put the lifeboats on the liner.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), who has guided our thoughts on this Bill from the Opposition Front Bench, and who has been so constructive about the approach to extra-territoriality in Committee and again today. I very much hope that the Minister will have discerned the extremely positive approach that Opposition Front Benchers are taking to extra-territoriality, and their insistence that that issue be debated further when we come to consider the Minister's review.
I conclude by expressing my thanks and the thanks of many colleagues in both places—not least the thanks of the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme—for the huge amount of helpful work, research and support that has emanated from the Coalition on Child Prostitution and Tourism. The coalition is composed of Anti-Slavery International, the Catholic Fund for Overseas Development, Christian Aid, the Jubilee Campaign, the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, Save the Children (UK) and World Vision UK. That is a powerful coalition. Anne Badger, who co-ordinated it and supplied us with so much good material, and has sent in the coalition's evidence to the review on extra-territoriality, has done a superb job.
We are greatly in the coalition's debt; it is precisely the sort of body that is being active as non-governmental organisations in overseas countries. They are likely to be well placed to provide evidence of offences committed overseas in any court cases that may, in the end, materialise here.
I conclude by commending all those who have helped us so much, and my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South for the initiative he has taken.

Mr. Garnier: As I said earlier this morning, I feel somewhat of an interloper in the debate, since I was not on the Committee where so many constructive suggestions were made as to the progress and content of the Bill.
I echo what has been said before—not because it is customary to do so, but because it is right that I should do so—by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) on his good fortune and the exemplary way in which he has brought forward the Bill for presentation.
It is one of the best Friday Bills that I have had the pleasure of reading, because it commands the support of all sides of the House, is tightly drafted and is designed for the specific aim—I have no doubt that it will achieve it—of preventing conspiracies and incitement to do unattractive and revolting acts in foreign countries that no moral person could possibly condone.
By keeping my remarks as brief as I can, I do not wish to be thought merely to be giving cursory praise to my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South, who has performed a signal task. The House, the country and, as right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) has already said, his constituents, will remember that for a good many years to come.
I should like to concentrate on some aspects of the Bill, bearing in mind that this is its Third Reading, which strike me as of particular importance. In clause 1, the ingredients of the conspiracy to commit certain sexual acts outside the United Kingdom are set out.
There is a great mystique about conspiracy. It is often thought—I suspect by laymen and others—that there is something terribly magical about a conspiracy, but it is no more than an agreement between two or more persons to effect an unlawful purpose. The crime is in the agreement. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South and my right hon. Friend the Minister would agree that it is often difficult to get the evidence to prove the conspiracy, but the concept and definition of criminal conspiracy is remarkably simple.
That is just one of the reasons why I find the Bill so attractive. The definition is set out in such simple terms that every person who might be considering breaching its terms in the future will be in no doubt that that is what he is doing.
The conditions set out in the subsections to clause 1 are essential. One of the most essential, which I find so useful, is that in clause 1(3):
The second condition is that that act or other event constitutes an offence under the law in force in that country or territory.
To some extent, that deals with the implied suggestion by my hon. Friend the Member for Elmet (Mr. Batiste), who spoke with great fluency and cogency, that we were imposing some legislative colonialism on other countries. The double criminality key acquits us of that offence.
There is no need for small children, the innocent victims of such offences, to be brought, at great peril and in fear, from their own lands to this country to go through the ordeal of having to give evidence in a Crown court, because the conspiracy or the incitement will be committed here. It may be that the eventual consequences of the conspiracies and the incitements will be abroad, but because the conspiracy and therefore the crimes that my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South so rightly

wishes to stop takes place in this country—or at least elements of them take place in this country—there will be no need for the children to come to this country.
From my personal experience of the civil side of the law, I know that it is not always a good idea to introduce minors, those of tender age, into court because it leads to all sorts of unforeseen consequences, not only with regard to the progress of the trial but also with regard to the future lives of the children.

Mr. Alison: As a layman, I am following the trail that my right hon. and learned Friend has suddenly opened up to me—it seems to be absolutely fascinating. Is he advising us that any offence connected with or committed by a British citizen against a child in another country, such as sexual abuse, automatically implies that a conspiracy must have taken place, and that therefore the case is automatically susceptible to the provisions of the Bill? If that is the case, we have no problems about extra-territorial legislation.

Mr. Garnier: I am not sure that that is the case, because, clearly, there will be cases in which a British subject independently buys himself an airline ticket, goes to another country without conspiring with or being incited by anyone, and commits an act that would be considered a sexual offence against a minor if committed in this country. It may also be an offence to commit that act in the other country—for example, in Thailand. However, under the present law the fact that he commits the act in Thailand, is not prosecuted for it in Thailand and returns here does not make him guilty of an offence that would be brought within the terms of the Bill. If he conspires with or incites others while in England to do such things abroad, he will be caught by the Bill.
I hope that I am correct in saying that this is a limited Bill that attempts to create discrete crimes that can be dealt with positively. It fills a hole that needed to be filled. The Bill does not require under-age children to be brought to England to justify the prosecution. It seems to me a safeguard if people were worried that children would be brought back here to go through the ordeal of giving evidence in the United Kingdom courts. That is not a worry if the offences are committed under the Bill. That is of great assistance to us all.
My hon. Friend the Member for Elmet made the point that the primary responsibility for stopping this sort of misconduct does not lie only with this country. The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding) gave us some examples of how Thailand is doing a great deal to fulfil its responsibilities, both to its own nationals and internationally. It is tightening its laws on this subject. However, I fear that that may be an isolated example—though I hope that I am wrong.
I hope that, when the Bill gets publicity in the international press—as it surely will—it will encourage other Governments to introduce measures to clamp down on sexual misconduct with children and other vulnerable people in their own states. Hon. Members will then be able to feel that they have done a service in passing the Bill on to the statute book, and that other countries will take up the battle cry and introduce their own legislation to ensure that they play their part.
A minor point concerned me relating to clause 1(3)—the double criminality point—which ties in with the point that I made in response to the hon. Member for


Newcastle-under-Lyme. There may be some offences that are on the statute books of another country but that are never prosecuted.
I have a fear that some defence legal teams will say that, because the offences that we find abhorrent in this country are not rigorously prosecuted in other countries, it will be contrary to public policy, and the Crown Prosecution Service should be discouraged from bringing prosecutions. They may say: if the offences are never brought to book in another country, why should we penalise a potential defendant in this country? Several hon. Members have read out the available punishments for committing serious sexual offences in this country; perhaps the courts abroad are not so willing or so ready to impose the severest penalties.
I choose a ludicrous example to make the point, but let us assume that, in a foreign country, the maximum penalty for committing unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl under 16 is life imprisonment, but that, on the rare occasion that an offender is brought to a court and a conviction made, the offender is given a conditional—even absolute—discharge. I trust that our courts and systems in this country will not allow that to be taken into account in deciding the merit of a policy of prosecution.
If the offence abroad is a bad thing of itself, it must be prosecuted with rigour if it is conspired towards or incited towards in this country, and we should not allow other people's—perhaps less rigorous—views on the law of penalties to affect our decision-making process.

Mrs. Golding: Other countries have had the problems with young children giving evidence that we have experienced. That is why Thailand is making proposals to enable young children to give evidence in court more easily—we have already made progress with that in this country. As other countries realise that laws can be put in force, prosecutions may increase.

Mr. Garnier: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that helpful intervention.
I have briefly discussed the conspiracy aspect of the Bill. I shall now briefly discuss clause 2—the incitement aspect. I must remind myself, if not others, that we are talking about the commission not of the substantive offences but, as the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) rightly reminded us, of inchoate offences—conspiracy and incitement.
Incitement is not a difficult word; it is the encouragement of others to commit a crime. It is the step before the conspiracy. The person incited may be party to the conspiracy with the person inciting. The clause, and the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South, does not mean that innocent children from abroad need to come to this country to give evidence to support the prosecution of those who commit such offences in this country.
In addition to the general thrust of the Bill, what I like about the incitement clauses and the parts thereunder—I am looking now especially at clause 3—is the need for a joining of issues, presumably on paper, before the trial begins.
Clause 3(2) provides:

Subject to subsection (3), a condition in section 1(3) or 2(1)(c) is to be taken to be satisfied unless, not later than rules of court may provide, the defence serve on the prosecution a notice"—
and then there is a list of things that a defence must include in the notice.
Some people may consider that that reverses the burden of proof and imposes on the defendant a burden that he would not otherwise face under our criminal law, but that interpretation would be wrong. All the clause does—it is a good example of the new policy in criminal trials, which has been in existence in civil actions for years—is bring before the judge, at the earliest possible stage, a joining of issues, so that time is not wasted in a court exploring matters that need not be explored.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South on introducing the clause, because it will sensibly reduce the time that is often wasted on making investigations to produce evidence to go into issues that will not be at issue at trial. It will save time and money, and many people prosecuted under the legislation will be entitled to legal aid—although, if they have been on expensive holidays abroad, perhaps they will not. But much public money will be saved. That issue may not have occurred to people before, but clause 3 addresses it, for which I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South.
I shall ask my right hon. Friend the Minister one question before 1 finish—I apologise for speaking for longer than I intended. Clause 3(4) states:
The court, if it thinks fit, may permit the defence to require the prosecution to show that the condition is satisfied without prior service of a notice under subsection (2).
I assume that that applies where the defendant has not complied with subsection (2), there has been no joining of issues on paper and the court may, of its own motion, allow a defendant to require the prosecution to show that the condition is satisfied.
What are the ground rules for allowing the court to think it fit? Perhaps either my right hon. Friend the Minister or my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South will respond to that question, if not immediately, perhaps in writing later.
I have spoken with sincere warmth about the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South, and I hope that I can, unusually, extend that warmth to the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding), who was a member of the Committee and clearly did a good job—if I may say so without sounding patronising. I congratulate and thank hon. Members who have contributed to the debate today, who have helped to make this one of the best Bills that this Parliament will have passed.

Mr. Jenkin: I join the many voices in the Chamber in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) on introducing the Bill. I have come here this morning in response to the steady flow of representations that I have received from constituents from all walks of life and to the pressure that has been exerted by organisations mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison). I have also come in response to my own conscience on the horrors of the offences that we are discussing. It has not been a particularly enjoyable morning in the House of Commons,


but, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) explained, it has perhaps been one of the most useful Friday mornings that we have spent in the House for some time, at least since the Bill's Second Reading. I congratulate the Committee on doing a good job.
I support the Bill and wish to express my constituents' support for it. But I also wish to express my constituents' anxieties about the continuing perceived shortcomings of the Bill. The amendments that we discussed earlier this morning were a further attempt to deal with the Bill's perceived shortcomings arising from the issue of extra-territoriality. The importance that people attach to the ability of British law to deal with offences in other countries should not be underestimated. The House should not underestimate the mystification that people express at the fact that the House and Parliament are unable to frame effective legislation in order to prosecute people who they believe have committed heinous offences.
Everyone in the House believes that those people have committed heinous offences, and we present ourselves as a sovereign Parliament. The public are therefore mystified as to why it is impossible to frame legislation to prosecute people for offences for which they should be prosecuted. In many countries where British citizens commit offences, systems of law and order, accountability and public administration are wanting—which is why such offences are committed there. Although there is legislation criminalising sex with minors in Thailand, for example, we know that there are few prosecutions for those offences. Constituents must be confident that Parliament is doing its job and implementing much-needed laws. I am concerned that in this Bill we are failing in that task.
I listened carefully to the explanation given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State as to why particular clauses that would apply British law to offences committed outside the United Kingdom cannot appear in the Bill. I listened also to the debate between my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough about the issue.
However, the vast majority of British people will be rather unsympathetic when faced with technical explanations—however satisfactory they may be for lawyers. It is impossible to explain to a layman why a sovereign parliament cannot decide whom it shall prosecute and for what offences, and then introduce laws to conduct that prosecution. Perhaps we need different criminal legislation in this country. It may be that our existing criminal court system and our conventions of criminal evidence, criminal prosecutions and our common law history are inadequate to the task.
Perhaps Parliament should establish a new court with special rules of evidence, special procedures and a special judge to deal with offences that are committed extra-territorially. Perhaps that system should be constructed in isolation from the common law which pervades our criminal justice system. We may have to create a different branch of law through primary legislation to deal with the problem. If the powers that be retreat into technical argument and cower behind the reasoning offered by eminent Queen's Counsels or well-advised Ministers, it creates a lingering sense of unease that we are not doing our job properly.

Mr. Garnier: My hon. Friend seems to suggest that British courts should have extra-territorial jurisdiction in

this and in other matters. Would he be content for courts in other countries—I refer particularly to the European Court or something of that nature—to have similar powers here? I know that my hon. Friend is interested in such matters.

Mr. Jenkin: As we know from the Swedish experience, courts in other countries have extra-territorial jurisdiction. If British nationals who had committed offences returned to certain countries, they could be prosecuted by the courts there. The comparison with the European Court of Justice is not a serious one. Parliament has given that court jurisdiction, through primary legislation, over the domestic law of the land. I do not suggest that we should persuade Thailand to grant jurisdiction to United Kingdom courts over Thai domestic law—that would mean granting powers equivalent to that of the European Court of Justice.
As it is difficult to adapt the existing system of criminal law prosecution in this country to deal with the new types of offences that are promoted across the world by new technology and in which vast numbers of people may engage through the cheapness of long-haul international travel, we can no longer be satisfied with the system that has developed without taking account of such considerations. If Parliament does not have the power and the imagination to adapt the British legal system to the present circumstances of widespread foreign travel and high technology, we shall cease to be the relevant institution that we should be in the minds of our constituents. I should like to leave that thought with the House this morning.
The Bill is a worthwhile measure. My right hon. Friend the Minister's explanations on the limitation of extra-territoriality were well put and I shall explain them to my constituents. I shall cut out the columns of Hansard and send them to those who have lobbied me about the Bill.

Mr. Michael: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman shares the concerns that have been expressed by others, but does he accept that the length at which he is pursuing a point that has been dealt with in detail in Committee is beginning to raise the thought that perhaps Conservative Members wish to draw out the debate to avoid what will obviously be an embarrassing debate for the Conservative party on the sources of money for their general election fund, especially from abroad?

Mr. Jenkin: I shall treat that intervention with the contempt that it deserves. I was completing my remarks.
I welcome the Bill and I shall convey to my constituents the explanations that my right hon. Friend has given. However, I shall leave that thought with the House about the future scope of the legislation, as we shall be dealing not only with these offences, but with many others which, in the international world and the global village in which we now live, may require laws with extra-territorial jurisdiction so that we can prosecute people who come to Britain having committed offences abroad.

Mr. Congdon: The House and the country have a good tradition dealing with the difficult issue of child abuse. I was interested to read that in 1994 there were more than 2,200 successful prosecutions in Britain for the vile


practice of child abuse. That is why it is even more important for the House to give the Bill a Third Reading so that it can proceed to the other place.
It would be quite wrong to have strong laws in Britain dealing with child abuse without there being any measures to prevent those people who have been inhibited by those laws from avoiding them by going abroad to indulge in perverted practices.
In reading the debates on the Bill on Second Reading and in Committee, I was interested to learn about the scale of child prostitution, in so far as it can be measured. The figures quoted were that there are 200,000 child prostitutes in Thailand and 60,000 in the Philippines. An appalling number of children's lives are ruined by the foul and awful trade in child prostitution. That is why it was right for my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) to introduce this important Bill.
Many of my constituents have written to me on the matter and the correspondence goes back some considerable time. I must confess that about a year ago I felt that we were making good progress. The right noises were coming from Home Office Ministers and I welcomed the proposal from my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South. I thought that it was great that we were putting measures on the statute book to deal with the trade in child prostitution.
As I said earlier, I was then somewhat mortified to get a lot of letters and postcards from constituents asking, "Why is it that you as Members of Parliament are sitting back and doing nothing about this foul, vile trade?" I was surprised when my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Sir M. Neubert) said that the postcards he had received had no addresses on them. It may be that people in Croydon are more literate or more open than people in Romford—I do not know—but I certainly had a fair number of letters from people who gave their names and addresses.
My right hon. Friend the Minister's response was excellent. It set out clearly the Government's views, which we all share, about this foul trade and about the need to do something about it. That is why I welcome the Bill.
I share the concern of my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) that the Bill does not go far enough in terms of extra-territoriality. He was absolutely right to elaborate on that point. It was a pity that the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) intervened as he did. There is no doubt that people look to this House to pass legislation on crimes that they find abhorrent, and they want us to take further action. Having listened carefully this morning to the explanation of why the Bill does not go further, I understand the point.
The House has a tradition of passing legislation that is not just about bringing prosecutions, but about changing behaviour. The law that is always cited in that respect is the Race Relations Act 1976. There are other laws, some of which hon. Members have cited this morning, which make certain offences illegal. If one asks in a parliamentary question how many people have been prosecuted under that law and how many people have gone to prison, the number may be derisory. In a way, that does not matter because the important point is whether the law succeeds in changing practice—yes or no. I believe strongly that, regardless of the argument that it would be

difficult to bring a prosecution against someone for committing such acts abroad, it would have been right extend the Bill in that way.
I now turn to what the Bill tries to do. In a sense, the same point about the difficulties of bringing prosecutions could be made about the Bill as it stands. I do not say this to criticise the Bill. It can be difficult to prove conspiracies and it can be difficult to provide the necessary evidence. However, I believe that the very fact of the Bill's getting on to the statute book will send a firm message to those thinking of going to countries such as Thailand to engage in perverted practices that it is just be possible that they or the people who are putting out advertisements will be prosecuted. That is likely to lead to a reduction in such offences.
I resisted intervening in the debate on amendment No. 1, which covered sending and receiving messages on the Internet. I had more doubts before I listened to the debate. I now feel that the amendment is likely to be workable. I suspect that the sending is far easier to prove than the receiving, but I presume that it would be possible for anyone, whether a policeman or someone else, to prove that a message can be received by logging on to the Internet and receiving it. It may be far easier to get proof in terms of the Internet than it would be in terms of telephone messages, which just disappear unless one has one of those infernal answering machines and even then the messages can be recorded over.
Although there may be difficulties in obtaining prosecutions under the legislation, the very fact that the House will pass the Bill will change behaviour, and we all wish to see that happen. I will continue to respond to my constituents and tell them that I am confident that the House of Commons is doing what it can to deal with that vile practice and trade.
I hope that, at a later date, Ministers—or perhaps another private Member—will feel that they can introduce an extension to the Bill along the lines that I have indicated. I am pleased to add my support to the Bill on Third Reading and I look forward to seeing it on the statute book shortly.

Lady Olga Maitland: I add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall). His adoption of the Bill was typical of him, because he has never ducked difficult issues. I have always known him to be a courageous man with a strong social conscience. When we became aware that the subject needed tackling, I knew that we needed someone who is not squeamish, because it takes guts to go into the seamier side of life and not quail. I also admire my hon. Friend for pulling together a committed team, because, by working as a united force and doing its own research, that team has made the Bill so workable and worth while.
I find it very difficult to accept that people can be so utterly degraded and so disgusting as even to contemplate the sexual abuse of children that we have heard about. I am appalled that such people seem to have no sense of shame and no conscience about the damage that they must be doing or have done to defenceless children, boys and girls. When young people are abused in that way, they are damaged for life. There is no turning back. Their prison sentence has started once they have been assaulted for mere sexual gratification, and they do not stand a chance.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) pointed out on Second Reading—unfortunately, I was not in the Chamber for his speech, but I read it and thought he made his point powerfully—the children involved are often orphans. They are desperate, hungry, illiterate and probably far from home and have often been duped into taking drugs to make them more malleable. The thought makes me shake with horror.
The situation is made all the worse by the fact that the people who take advantage of the children are those who have had every opportunity that the first world has to offer. They are mostly prosperous business men, professional people and people from all walks of life. They are not simple illiterates who do not know any better—they do, and that makes the Bill all the more important.
The Bill deals with the important and core point: if people do not conspire and encourage others to commit such acts, it is less likely that the offences will happen on the scale that they do. Therefore, tackling conspiracy and incitement is a vital aspect of the Bill. I regard with wry humour the bottom of the first page of the Bill which states:
The Bill will have no effect on costs to businesses.
My goodness, I hope it does. I hope that it runs out of business every little trade that sends people abroad to commit those acts. I hope that they all end up thoroughly bankrupt.
We must consider the scale of the sexual exploitation which has been mentioned in the House already. The 1995 Christian Aid report, entitled "An Abuse of Innocence", estimated that the numbers of children in prostitution in Thailand approached 250,000, and there are growing numbers in Colombia, Sri Lanka, Kenya, India, Vietnam and Cambodia. To my mind, there is no burning hell that is sufficient punishment for the people who prey on those children.
Earlier, hon. Members were anguishing about extra-territorial jurisdiction. We cannot duck that in the long term. When British nationals overseas act in the ways described, it is our moral responsibility to bring them to justice. If we need to bring laws into being to deal with that, we must do so.
I am disappointed that we are serving ourselves only half a loaf today, but we do so in the expectation that it will become the whole. Unless we tackle the issue with genuine energy, we will let down both ourselves and the aims of the Bill. Indeed, it would be a gross neglect of duty.
I accept that the Bill now goes a little further than intended because of the amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South dealing with the means of messages being sent to or received from overseas. At least that is a step forward. However, it is simply not good enough to say that the problems of extra-territorial jurisdiction are too legally tortuous to tackle and may be beyond us—and that even if we did give the courts such jurisdiction, it would be a token gesture; in short, worthless. I do not take that view. My view is that the offences are so deeply offensive and terrible that we are under a moral obligation to do all that we can to surmount the difficulties. Somehow, we must.
I accept that my right hon. Friend the Minister is concerned about the matter. He made a moving speech on this real problem when he addressed the Michael Sieff Foundation's conference "Child Sex Tourism—The Need

For An Urgent UK Response". I welcome the fact that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has instigated a review of our policy on this matter. It is right to examine whether the arguments that underpin the territorial nature of our jurisdiction should remain valid or whether we should go further.
We must take into account the changing circumstances regarding evidence. For example, some perverts return with videos of their sick activities abroad. Surely we could convict them on that evidence alone, rather than prosecute for the lesser offence of possession of child pornography. By taking a lateral thinking approach to the problems, the review body, when it comes into being, will be able to reach a positive conclusion on how to proceed. Its time will have been well spent.
What worries me is that, meanwhile, we have a long way to go. Perhaps we should examine what other countries are doing. Twelve have now passed extra-territorial laws allowing them to prosecute nationals engaged in sex offences in other countries. Those countries are: Australia, Belgium, France, Germany, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, the United States of America, Iceland, Denmark, Finland and Switzerland. I welcome the fact that the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) will be addressing a conference on this subject in Strasbourg next week. I hope that he will raise the whole issue of extra-territorial jurisdiction. I also hope that he will learn lessons from other countries and bring them home with him. I wonder why we cannot summon up all our resources and do the same as those other countries.
Another matter astonishes me. Surely we could seek out the, evidence overseas ourselves, perhaps through Interpol or with the help of the National Criminal Intelligence Service. My right hon. Friend the Minister referred to the NCIS paedophile unit, which is very experienced. I do not understand why it cannot be asked specifically to take on research into these offences. I understand that the unit has already chased across the world on other paedophile matters, so its experience could be brought to good account.
We could seek bilateral arrangements with the police forces of other countries to help us to investigate crimes, gather evidence and get together the forensic materials. Most of the countries that we are concerned about have laws outlawing sexual trade, even if they are rather lax about doing anything about it.
When Lord Hylton introduced his own Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill in the other place in February, he pointed out that police liaison officers had been sent from this country to overseas locations in respect of drugs offences. Why not then in relation to sexual offences? Is not a child abused every bit as serious as a drug offence? Does not a child come before drugs? Do not human beings come before drugs? I accept that drugs can have an appalling effect on human beings in other ways, but none the less we are talking about young, innocent people, and they have rights that we should put to the top of the agenda.
May I put a more positive light on the Bill? It may not be perfect. In many aspects, it leaves much to be desired, but it is better to get such a Bill on the statute book and get on with it rather than not act at all. At least it will be possible to make amendments at a later stage. That would certainly pass a clear signal that this society would no longer tolerate such behaviour.
When he launched his review of sex tourism, my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary declared:
the full force of the law must be used against the evil people who sexually exploit children for money. It is an abhorrent activity. We must do all we can to prevent it and protect children everywhere.
The Government have always placed high value on children, and their safety and well-being, so I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will not rest until he has stiffened up the Bill much further.
Lastly, a word for the countries where the child sex trade persists. I trust that talks are taking place at the highest level between our respective Governments to work together to curb this trade. There is evidence that, while it may be forbidden, the authorities turn a blind eye. A country can be regarded as truly civilised only if it guards and protects innocent young children with the same dedication as we do here. Authorities the world over must be pressed to close down their child brothels and prosecute.

Mr. Michael: Does the hon. Lady agree that support for the 10th item on the Order Paper today, the Sexual Offences Against Children (Register of Offenders) Bill, would be a measure of the interest and civilisation of Members of the House, and that we should move forward on the Bill in order to debate not only that Bill but the Bill which seeks to regulate international contributions to the finances of the Conservative party and other Bills which are waiting their place for debate?

Lady Olga Maitland: I am disappointed by the hon. Gentleman's intervention. He brings a political dimension to an important issue, on which I thought that we shared genuine sympathy and concern.

Mr. Michael: We do, but I also share concern that the debate is being dragged out to avoid reaching the next Bill. There are some good points.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. This is becoming tedious repetition now.

Lady Olga Maitland: I shall conclude, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Everyone here today is likely to be a parent or to have close young relatives. Many of us have brought children into the world. We bring them up, we nurture them, we are aware of their gentle innocence. It is understandably revolting even to contemplate any violence against them. A twisted pervert who plans for months his vile sexual programme and goes overseas in search of it deserves the full weight of the law. A life sentence is the only penalty that I could accept. It is hard to show mercy for a man who has committed such offences.
After all, such a man has condemned one child or perhaps many children to a living death. They could end up committing suicide through desperation or dying from infections such as AIDS. Why should that man enjoy the freedom to go out and commit further offences and leave the innocent to suffer for ever? I trust that the courts will not falter in following public opinion and imposing the appropriate penalties. I congratulate my hon. Friend the

Member for Hendon, South on introducing the Bill. It is vastly overdue, and all the more important for it. I wish it speedy progress to Royal Assent.

Sir Michael Neubert: As a sponsor of the Bill, a supporter on Second Reading, a member of the Committee that considered it and a participant in this morning's debate on Report, probably have no need to reaffirm my detestation of that most detestable of practices, the sexual abuse of children. Now that I am on my feet, I pay tribute again to the author of the Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall), who has done the House and children a service by introducing it. I hope that it will shortly be given a Third Reading and pass to another place.
I rise briefly because we all recognise that no individual Member of Parliament has the resources or capacity to introduce such a measure without considerable support and research backing from organisations outside—perhaps even a Department of State. My thanks should be put on record to the Action for Children Campaign and especially to its director, Rev. Graham St. John-Willey. It has been active in the matter for six years, not just the six months since the Bill's introduction. Today marks some advance for its desire to bring this most disreputable of trades to an end, so far as we can achieve that by the Bill.
The Action for Children Campaign represents a large coalition of national organisations—principally, the National Council of Women of Great Britain. Altogether, more than 100 leading women's organisations and many others in churches, synagogues, schools, colleges, universities and youth organisations, have supported its programme. It must be gratifying for them, after all their efforts, that some of their hopes, especially in respect of sex tours, are being realised by what I hope will be the Bill's speedy passage through Parliament. I renew my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South and wish the Bill well.

Mr. Michael: I again congratulate the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall), who has done a service to the House and the public in bringing the Bill forward. That service has been limited by the limited nature of the Bill that was handed to him by the Government Whips Office; that has been reflected in the contributions of hon. Members on both sides of the House in Committee and on Report. Nevertheless, the Bill is an important stage in tackling this terrible problem.
The Bill is a good deal stronger because of the amendments agreed by us today than it was when it entered the House or when it came back from Committee. The amendments have made it a significant step in dealing with an international scandal and with the outrage of everybody in Britain at the actions of citizens of the United Kingdom who participate in and encourage the activities that it is intended to tackle. I am pleased that the Minister picked up the points that were made in Committee and supported the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Hendon, South today.
Tough words from the Home Secretary or from the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans) are meaningless and of no value to the victims of paedophiles


unless we have clear and effective law backed by action. The contributions of some Conservative Members have been weighty and serious. However, although the contributions of the hon. Members for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) and for Welwyn Hatfield and others may have been impelled by concerns expressed by their constituents, they were also impelled by the wish of the Government Whips Office to avoid discussion of the funding from abroad of the Conservative party, which is the matter that will be debated once this Bill has passed on its way.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding) and for Tooting (Mr. Cox), who have pursued the issue over not weeks but years. My hon. Friend the Member for Tooting made the important point that we need to know what is being done on our behalf and in our names in international debates and in terms of international action. He has played a major part in the international debate and in trying to move the issue forward.
In Committee, it was disappointing to hear the Minister of State say that he was content to leave actions abroad by British citizens to the law of those countries and the enthusiasm of the law enforcement agencies there. During those debates, he suggested that extradition and the offer of co-operation by the British Government were enough. I welcome his statement that the British Government would co-operate in the extradition of people who have been involved in such activities abroad and have been accused of them.
I also welcome the comments that the Minister of State made this morning about the activities of the National Criminal Intelligence Service. It is important to hear a Minister telling the House that he welcomes and supports activity to identify and pursue those who commit offences under the Bill and offences overseas. I believe that the Minister has responded to the quality of the debate in Committee and on Report and has increased his interest in the topic, and I welcome that.
The problem with the extradition and punishment or pursuit of offenders by third-world countries is that our citizens have economic power in the poor countries in which the most horrendous exploitation of children takes place. Fear of discouraging tourism by following through the tough action in a way that might inspire headlines in the United Kingdom can be a disincentive. Fear of that sort of response and its effect on the economy might have an impact. Therefore, a stronger voice from Ministers, saying that international action will be encouraged, is important indeed.
The hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) was right to say that the Crown Prosecution Service should not be lazy or ineffective in prosecuting offenders under the Bill. I am paraphrasing what he said, but it sounded as though he shared my concern that it will take little to discourage the CPS from making proper use of the Bill. I hope that the message that goes from the House is clear and shows that, in supporting the Bill, we want it to be acted upon.
We need pressure from the Government in wider avenues of activity. I hope that support will be given to item 10 on the order paper, the Sexual Offences against Children (Registers of Offenders) Bill and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Ms Anderson) for promoting it; it has much support. If

the Government Whip, cowering in a corner, shouts, "Object!", I warn him and Conservative Members that our constituents and theirs will not understand and that their constituents will not forgive an obstruction being placed in the way of that worthwhile legislation.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must remind the hon. Gentleman that debate must be confined to the Bill.

Mr. Michael: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The hon. and learned Member for Harborough referred to enforcement. We need to make it easy for poor countries to take a tough line and to realise that our decision in passing this legislation is an important stage in the British Parliament's declaring its abhorrence of such activities abroad and its intention to do more to curb them.
The Government need to be proactive and to support the activities to which my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting referred. I hope that the Minister of State will take on board the suggestion that there should be some representation at the Strasbourg conference. If Ministers from other countries are attending, there seems to be no reason for us not to be represented—at least by a junior Minister. Perhaps we will send a more senior representative to the Stockholm conference in August. I am not sure whether sending an Under-Secretary of State rather than a Minister of State with the standing of the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), who dealt with the Bill in Committee and on the Floor of the House, will send the right message. I welcome the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has dealt with the Bill today and in Committee. That sort of message needs to be carried to the Strasbourg conference as well.
The right hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) referred to the coalition that has campaigned to end child prostitution abroad, and I join in the tribute that he paid to its work in briefing hon. Members.
The right hon. Member for Selby also referred to our support for an urgent debate after the completion of the Home Secretary's review of extra-territoriality. That review must be completed quickly. It must not merely be put into a cupboard in the Home Office but be brought to the House for a speedy debate so that we can examine it. Like the Minister, I, on behalf of the Opposition, do not want to raise unrealistic hopes, but we need to examine the results of the Home Secretary's review of the issues surrounding extra-territoriality and the options of strengthened action through the international community, perhaps by means of international agreements and legislation. We should be debating the Government's actions on extra-territoriality in the context of a determination to find the right way to take action on this abhorrent practice.
In that context, I welcome the Bill, which has the Opposition's support as a small but important first step towards obtaining adequate and tough legislation to deal with this issue.

Mr. Maclean: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) on his excellent handling of the Bill during its passage through the House.
United Kingdom law, of course, strictly prohibits the mistreatment of children, and those who commit offences against children in this country rightly face stiff penalties. The Government are committed to doing all they can to deter and punish those who sexually abuse children and to ensuring that, when prosecutions are brought against people who mistreat children, the criminal justice system treats child victims of crime fairly and with sensitivity.
Measures to ensure that the criminal justice process treats children fairly and with sensitivity include such provisions as allowing children to give evidence by closed circuit television, allowing video-recorded interviews of children conducted by the police or social workers to form the child's evidence-in-chief at trial, and allowing committal proceedings in cases in which children are involved to be bypassed so that they do not have to give evidence twice.
The paedophile unit of the National Criminal Intelligence Service maintains a computerised database of people actively involved in paedophilia. The unit collects, develops, analyses and disseminates information and intelligence relating to those people and works closely with police forces across the country. I must say that the unit is one of the best organisations of its type in the world. It may be the only organisation that so vigorously pursues paedophiles.
People who sexually abuse children are liable to be prosecuted for a wide range of offences. The offences include rape, unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl under 13, unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl under 16, buggery with a child under 16, indecent assault, and gross indecency with a child under 14.
The measures in the Bill are a further extension of the powers the Government have taken over the years to combat the menace that perverts pose to innocent children everywhere. The Government cannot and would not deny that, regrettably, a significant number of those perverts who travel to other lands to abuse children are British. It is right, therefore, that the Government should take the matter seriously and consider what measures they can take.
I have received many letters from people expressing their disgust that, in their view, the Government have not acted to take extra-territorial jurisdiction. Like my right hon. and hon. Friends, I share their anger at some of the despicable postcards that were sent to hon. Members on both sides of the House accusing hon. Members of not caring about or being idle in children's defence. Any organisation that sends such postcards, signed or not, should be ashamed of itself.
All hon. Members are concerned about children. No sensible Government, however, should introduce legislation unless they can be certain that it will be effective. Hon. Members on both sides of the House would be among the first to criticise the Government were the legislation to prove ineffective or counter-productive, or if it failed to work. It is because we want to ensure that legislation is workable that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has announced a review of extra-territorial jurisdiction. If we can find a way to ensure that, in the particular circumstances of sex tourism, that jurisdiction would work and could be enforced effectively, we shall, as I have said repeatedly, not be backward in coming forward with legislation to tackle the problem.
I greatly respect the views that my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) holds on this matter. The mere fact that I have set out, perhaps robustly on occasions, the practical difficulties that we would face if we were to take extra-territorial jurisdiction does not mean that I have prejudged the result of the review or, to use his words, that I am unsympathetic to or unenthusiastic about extra-territorial jurisdiction. It is not that, but I do not want the House to run away with itself on a wave of emotion and believe that it is a simple matter of waving a magic wand and producing a couple of clauses in a Bill to achieve that aim easily.
Of course the measures in the Bill are not the entire answer to the problem, but I reject the suggestion that they are just a small step along the way. Although the Bill is extremely important, only effective action by the tourist-receiving countries will make a difference on the ground and make life infinitely better for the millions of children around the world who are being abused—although abuse sounds too light a word for what happens to them.
I am encouraged by some of the steps that have been taken by the Philippines, for example, to crack down on sex tourists. I am puzzled by those who act as apologists for the inaction by tourist-receiving countries when they say that those countries cannot be seen to prosecute western tourists because of the harm that it will do to their tourist trade. Therefore they must pass the buck back to western countries to do something. Of course those countries will attract the scum of the earth if they fail to purge their sleazy child brothels. I suggest that their tourist trade might expand if families and decent people felt able to visit such places, free from the fear either of being thought a pervert or of having to consort with them. My message to those countries is, "Prosecute those scum and see your international standing rise." Soho was cleaned up by taking action there, not by exhorting people in foreign countries not to come to London.
The Bill is, as I said, another helpful weapon in the fight against the perverts. The Government have taken other positive steps. We work hard in international forums, particularly the United Nations General Assembly and the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, to combat child prostitution. We supported the adoption in 1992 by the commission of a programme of action for the prevention of the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography, and have urged all countries to implement the measures that it contains.
We frequently raise the question of child prostitution in contacts with authorities in countries where that is a problem. As well as being a party to the convention on the rights of the child, we support the work of the committee on the rights of the child in monitoring the compliance of states with the convention.
The Overseas Development Agency provides assistance to several non-governmental organisation projects which involve the rehabilitation of street children and the associated problems of prostitution, drug abuse and violence.
The police service provides assistance to local law enforcement officers in countries where child prostitution is a problem directly and through participation in training sessions at the Interpol standing working party on offences against minors.
The Government whole-heartedly support the valuable participation of the police service in the work of the Interpol standing working party and the contribution of those officers who are working closely with their counterparts in the developing countries. We send politicians—me or my colleagues—to talk at international forums, and important though that may be, why we play a leading role came home to me loud and clear when I hosted a reception a few months for all the paedophile officers of Interpol around the world at the national headquarters of our National Criminal Intelligence Service.
Senior police officers from around the world have made contacts and exchanged business cards. They will not be hampered by diplomacy, protocol or convention, as they now have the telephone numbers of their colleagues in the Philippines, in Tokyo, in Pretoria, in New York and in Washington. They are now liaising and co-operating fully with each other to track down paedophiles. Britain is at the forefront of that process and it is at the centre of the hub through NCIS.

Mr. Michael: Does the Minister accept that what concerns us is not whether Minister talk at conferences but that they should listen, co-operate and, above all, lend their authority to action? That is what my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) and I are asking the Minister to do.

Mr. Maclean: I am slightly at a loss to know what to make of the hon. Gentleman's intervention. I have read out a list of areas in the United Nations and in Europe where Britain has been at the forefront in getting these conventions. We not only talk at the convention stage but follow it up in ratifying and getting the measures through. Every time I go to one of these conferences, the first thing I say to other countries is, "Before you start making a new convention for the world, will you please sign up to all the other conventions that you talked about five years ago and did not sign?" I can say that in relation to drugs and extradition, in particular.
Of course the British Government will be represented at the Stockholm conference and at the meeting in Strasbourg next week. Officials from my Department will be there and they will be involved in the planning and preparation stage. A Minister from the Home Office will be present at the conference in Stockholm in August. The British Government will be represented there, and I hope that conclusions will be reached.
I am making the point that the rank of the Minister is not what is essential; what is essential is the follow-up to the conference. This country has a proud record of following up the things to which it signs up and of pursuing them vigorously. We have the finest police force in the world and a team of officers dedicated to tracking down paedophiles and child abusers wherever they raise their ugly heads in the world. We shall continue to combat child prostitution through our work in international bodies and with the British police force hard on their heels.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South on introducing an excellent measure. I hope that he will understand when I say that, by sponsoring the Bill, his name will for ever more be linked with the sexual abuse of children: if his Bill is passed, as I hope and pray it will be, his name will be linked to this evil because, as a result of his efforts, another shield will have been raised to protect children from sexual abuse. My hon. Friend deserves the congratulations and thanks of hon. Members and the whole country for bringing the Bill forward and for his patience and kindness in piloting it through the House.
I also thank the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) for most of what he said, for his support of the Bill and for what he said in his concluding remarks. However, I am sorry that he introduced the bogus point of item 10 on our agenda today, which I shall not address. He knows very well from reading the White Paper produced by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department that we promised a consultation document going into detail on registers of paedophiles and a sex register.
The hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth also knows that my right hon. and learned Friend wrote to his hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Ms Anderson) yesterday to explain that it would be nonsense to proceed with precipitate legislation on a sex register which has not been thought out when we have a full consultation document coming out in relation to all aspects of this matter. It is bogus to suggest that any objection to the Bill that may occur today shows that we are not interested in the subject.

Sir Michael Neubert: Is it not even more astonishing that the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) is prepared to see such legislation go through on the nod this afternoon, without any debate at all?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are beginning to stray, even though the Minister said that he would not do so.

Mr. Maclean: I would not want to stray in any circumstances. We have had a good debate this morning. However, more important than whether the House has had a good debate is the fact that we now have an excellent measure that can help to make a difference.
For all the reasons I have given, I am delighted to support the Bill on behalf of the British Government. I look forward to its speedy passage through another place and to its becoming law. I hope that the message goes out from the House today to paedophiles or perverts, wherever they ply their trade in the world, that we have another hammer against them now, and if they try putting their stuff on the Internet we have another chance to get them. Their days are numbered; the message to them is, "Stop it, and stop it now!"

Question put and agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — Regulation of Funding of Political Parties Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. John Spellar: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I am pleased that the Government have created the opportunity for a fuller discussion of the Bill; after all, leave was given to introduce it by the margin of 163 votes to 62. I am not sure why the Government pulled the rug from under the Pensioners Earnings Bill, which was introduced in 1994, but the change is extremely welcome. I do not know whether the change represents a thawing in the ice age of stone walling by the Government. We hope that they do not try to talk the Bill out and prevent further detailed consideration in Committee of this vital democratic measure.
While paying tribute to those who helped to bring the measure to today's debate, we must pay tribute to the Prime Minister. In January, before I sought leave to introduce the Bill, he put the issue of political funding firmly and squarely on the political agenda. He said:
We know who pays 50 per cent. of the money that the Labour party gets".—[Official Report, 25 January 1996; Vol. 270, c. 476.]
He was absolutely right. We do know. It is all on the public record. Party accounts make it clear, as do the records of the certification officer for trade unions. Under strict regulations, unions must file their accounts and they are open and on the public record. Indeed, an annual report is published by the certification officer.
It is regrettable that no such transparency applies to Conservative party funding, which is shrouded in mystery and obscurity. A host of secretive companies and organisations, which I shall mention later—some created after the second world war—funnel secret funds into the Tory party. It appears that the Government are keen to keep it that way. It is, to use a phrase that was fairly common in January, a case of saying one thing and doing another.
When I sought leave to introduce the Bill, I referred to its three main aims. An extremely important one, which I shall discuss later, was that of prohibiting foreign donations. Hon. Members will note that there is no specific provision in the Bill to cover that, because we need to consider the fine detail. That is why you will see in the Bill, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that we have created a mechanism for examining the detail, reporting back and taking the matter further.
First, I shall expand on clause 1, regarding publication of donations. Many people, not only in the House but outside, may find it odd that, although as individual Members of Parliament we rightly have to declare our earnings, the Tory party machinery, which elects very many Members of the House, is able to maintain a wall of silence around the source of its funds. Essentially, the principle—

Lady Olga Maitland: rose—

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: rose—

Mr. Spellar: I give way to the hon. Lady.

Lady Olga Maitland: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is no secrecy about the funding of the Conservative party? Seventy per cent. of donations come from our supporters throughout the country from teas, coffee mornings, luncheons, fairs, fêtes and the like. There is nothing secret about that. Any money that comes via a company must be declared in the company accounts, for everyone to see. Where is the secrecy? There is no secrecy. The hon. Gentleman is trying to cast slurs on and make innuendos about the Conservative party.

Mr. Spellar: I suspect that Mr. Asil Nadir must have bought an awful lot of teas and buns with £400,000 to have obtained value for money—unless he was seeking something else.

Mr. Richard Ottaway: The lavender list was secret.

Mr. Spellar: The Whip mentioned secrecy. The reason for those donations from Mr. Nadir was unclear at the time that they were made. Only subsequently, after his other financial troubles and after he had fled the country, did it become clear. Indeed, the reason was so obscure that, when the matter came to court, the accountant for the Conservative party, Mr. Paul Judge, who took an unfortunate legal action against The Guardian at a cost of £300,000, said that, even though it was only two years later, the Conservative party had cleared out the records relating to the donation.
I shall take the hon. Lady's point further. I think that the Bill will help her and the Conservative party to clarify the matter. If the Conservative party had to publish proper accounts and make it clear where money came from, there would be no opportunity for the slurs and smears claimed by the hon. Lady, as the matter would be out in the open.

Mr. Tom Cox: My hon. Friend has raised the name of Mr. Nadir, about whom we have not heard very much for the three years since he fled the country overnight. I hope that my hon. Friend will develop the point, because we are entitled to know about such matters. Mr. Nadir met senior members of the Conservative party—chairmen of the party—who, with their close associates, have made it clear that Mr. Nadir was seeking a knighthood and was willing to pay whatever it cost. We know that he paid about £500,000 in the hope of achieving a knighthood.

Mr. Spellar: I thank my hon. Friend. I thought that the hon. Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) wanted to intervene, but he seems to have decided not to do so in the face of my robust reply to the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland).
The case of Mr. Nadir highlights strongly the sleazy sources of some of the money that goes into the Conservative party. My hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) rightly mentioned the strong correlation between donations to the Conservative party and the receipt of knighthoods and peerages. Obviously Mr. Nadir believed that his donations were the way to achieve those goals, even though the authorities caught up with him and the Conservative party reneged on its pledges to him—as it reneged on the tax claims that it made to the electorate at the last general election.

Lady Olga Maitland: The hon. Gentleman is not accepting the fact that, yet again, he wrongly interprets events and makes false slurs. There was no question of Asil Nadir being given a knighthood. He may have wished for one, just as some people wish for the blue moon. The Labour party is trying to place an interpretation on events which simply is not right: Mr. Nadir did not get his knighthood.

Mr. Spellar: The hon. Lady has reinforced my point: the Conservatives do not always deliver—Mr. Al Fayed was under the same misapprehension. One can understand how Mr. Nadir may have come by his misapprehension. When we examine donations from companies and major individuals—when they come to light—we discover that there is, to put it at its kindest, an extremely strong correlation between donations and the receipt of knighthoods and peerages for the managing directors, chairmen or board members of the companies involved.
The Bill makes a strong argument for the principle of transparency and the public's right to know the facts and to make an informed judgment. We can have a debate on whether the conclusions are right or justified, but for the debate to be informed, we need information.

Lady Olga Maitland: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has brought up the subject of transparency. He should look to his party. Perhaps he might like to reflect on the comments made by the general secretary of the Labour party, Larry Whitty, who told the Select Committee on Home Affairs that even if regulations requiring disclosure were not introduced, he would recommend that the party's national executive committee should voluntarily disclose larger donations. In the next breath, however, he said that the Labour party had received only 15 donations in excess of £10,000 a year and he confounded everyone by refusing to declare the source of that money. Is that not a case of saying one thing and doing another? It is typical hypocritical cant.

Mr. Spellar: I am grateful for the hon. Lady's support for the Bill. She said that it is desirable for political parties—she gave a different example—to declare the sources of donations to them. That is the correct course of action.

Lady Olga Maitland: The Labour party does not do it.

Mr. Spellar: The hon. Lady, yet again, makes a case—this time from a sedentary position—for legislation to deal with the issue. The Bill refers to the desirability of transparency so that all political parties may make clear the sources of their funding. The electorate can then draw its own conclusions.
We must look not only at the Conservative party, but at some of the shadowy organisations associated with it, such as British United Industrialists and the infamous river companies that were set up after the war to channel money to the Tory party. A new outfit, the City and Industrial Liaison Council, is now in business. Its purpose is to tap into the workings of the City and of industry and it is able to arrange for meetings between potential donors and senior Ministers. Other fund-raising organisations offer invitations to Downing street as part of their attractive packages.
Although the City and Industrial Liaison Council was established as a separate body, its address is 32 Smith square—which I believe is also the address of the offices of the Conservative party. Although the Tories do not own the premises, which they sold some time ago, they have managed to lease them at a very favourable rate. I see that the hon. Member for Colchester, North now wishes to participate in the debate.

Mr. Jenkin: I refrained from intervening a few moments ago as I wanted to see whether my suspicions about the debate would be confirmed. The debate is simply a string of innuendos and slurs assembled in such a way as to create a completely false impression about the way in which politics works within both the Conservative party and the country as a whole. All the Bill's sponsors are Labour Members and it is obvious that it is purely a party political exercise. The majority of people will be mystified as to why the hon. Gentleman believes that there is a secret conspiracy simply because an organisation has the same address as the Conservative party.

Mr. Spellar: I am not surprised that the hon. Gentleman is mystified: it is a permanent condition for him—particularly with regard to his party's European policy. The organisation's invitation says that a short opening statement by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will be followed by a question-and-answer session. Prospective donors are then invited to remain and meet those present over a drink. Access, influence and donation—these are not smears; they are the facts. That is what is happening and I think that the electorate has a right to know about it. The electorate has the right to make up its mind—perhaps people will accept the hon. Gentleman's charitable explanation of events—based on the facts.
Some of those who make donations are very clear about their motives. Two prominent donors to the Conservative party stated their motives clearly in an article in The Sunday Times last year. They said:
We consider donations to party funds to be similar to buying a round of drinks. If you want to be welcome at a party or a pub, it is policy and polite to pay your round.

Mr. Nirj Joseph Deva: The hon. Gentleman asserted that the liaison council that he discovered to be registered at 32 Smith square was a mysterious organisation. How on earth can it be a mysterious organisation if that is its address? He spoke about people meeting Ministers to put forward their points of view. Is he saying that he never meets anyone from the trade unions, which are the largest donors to the Labour party, that he is not impressed or influenced by them or that he does not listen to them?

Mr. Spellar: As the hon. Gentleman was not entirely sure of the name of the organisation to which I referred, perhaps the Bill will assist him as to what is happening in the party of which he is a member. Perhaps long-standing Tory Members would also like to know about the charter movement in their party, to which I shall refer later.
I referred to the fact that potential donors to the Conservative party were invited to meet the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. The Tories are confusing their role in government with their role as a party.


They have fallen deeper into mixing and merging those roles and do not recognise the key difference between the role of a Government and the role of a political party. The Bill will not stop that, but it will ensure that there is transparency in all those operations.

Mr. Edward Garnier: Where are the hon. Members for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche), for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), for Wallasey (Ms Eagle), for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), for Paisley, South (Mr. McMaster), for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay), for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) and for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane)—the sponsors of the Bill?

Mr. Spellar: The hon. and learned Gentleman is obviously seeking a place in the Whips Office, where he can track down hon. Members. If he had been taking note at the beginning of the debate, he would have noticed that the Bill was due to be further down the list in the order of business but, as a result of Government action—for reasons that I cannot guess—in pulling other legislation, it has moved up the list. We are fortunate to be able to discuss it today, but it was not easy to predict today's debate and hon. Members with considerable constituency duties will have undertaken to look into the problems of their constituents.

Mr. Alun Michael: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Many hon. Members were expecting to take part in a debate on the Prisoners' Earnings Bill, which was on the Order Paper until yesterday, when it was mysteriously removed from the agenda by the hon. Member concerned, no doubt under pressure from the Government Whips Office, which then had to bring in waifs and strays from the corridors to pad out the previous debate and thus delay debate on my hon. Friend's Bill.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. This is the fifth time that the hon. Gentleman has referred to that matter. I drew his attention to that fact earlier and it is now becoming tedious repetition. Obviously the hon. Gentleman did not take note of my previous remarks.

Mr. Deva: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it parliamentary for the hon. Gentleman to describe other hon. Members, including myself, as waifs and strays?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is not a description that I have heard before, but I do not deem it to be unparliamentary.

Mr. Garnier: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for an hon. Member unwittingly to mislead the House by suggesting that the Prisoners' Earnings Bill was removed from the Order Paper yesterday when, apparently, it was pulled three weeks ago?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: There are all sorts of orders and disorders in the House, but nothing this morning has been out of order. If it was, I would not have allowed it to continue.

Mr. Michael: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I call Mr. Spellar.

Mr. Spellar: Apart from helping some Conservative Members who are present, the publication to which I was referring might also be useful to Conservative central office. It might even assist the Prime Minister who, like the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam, seems to believe that the sources of Tory funding, as he said in October 1993,
are all cheese and wine parties up and down the country."—[Official Report, 19 October 1993; Vol. 230, c. 144.]
I should like to enlighten him—it would also help Conservative central office to have second thoughts and be far more discriminating about the origin of its funds and the motivation of some of its donors.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tooting spelled out at some length the case of Mr. Asil Nadir. If he had been a one-off, isolated case, one could regard the matter as an unfortunate accident, although £400,000 was a considerable sum. But he is by no means alone. Donations were made by Mr. Jack Lyons and by Mr. Gerald Ronson, another person who had to spend some time at Her Majesty's pleasure. There was Mr. Nazmu Virani, who was involved in the Bank of Credit and Commerce International scandal, and there were a number of others who made donations and who were subsequently found to be less than desirable persons.

Lady Olga Maitland: Does the hon. Gentleman intend to refer to the support that his party received from Mr. Robert Maxwell, the greatest robber of all time?

Mr. Spellar: I thank the hon. Lady for her support. That point was made by the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans) on a previous occasion when I sought to introduce the Bill. Indeed, I welcome that support for transparency about donations to all political parties.
I think that the creditors of Polly Peck would be pleased if the Conservative party arranged to give back the moneys that it received from Mr. Nadir, because it is doubtful whether the money came from Mr. Nadir or from the company. The creditors would be extremely—

Mr. Garnier: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Gentleman to refer to matters that are in controversy in a criminal trial? An associate of Mr. Asil Nadir has recently been convicted, but has yet to be sentenced for matters connected with Mr. Asil Nadir. I ask you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to give guidance to ensure that the hon. Gentleman does not stray too closely into the details of that case.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: All hon. Members should avoid matters that are sub judice. I hope that the hon. Member for Warley, West (Mr. Spellar) will do so.

Mr. Spellar: Obviously I accept your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, although I do not think that these moneys are the subject of the court case. It is interesting that the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) does not wish those matters to be discussed.

Mr. Garnier: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Warley, West is misconducting himself. He attributed motives to me in a wholly unworthy way. I have no ulterior motive in drawing to your attention the need for care when we are talking about current criminal cases.

Lady Olga Maitland: My hon. and learned Friend is a QC.

Mr. Garnier: I will ignore that point. If the hon. Member for Warley, West (Mr. Spellar) wishes to make personal remarks, he should confine himself to doing so outside the Chamber.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I thought that I had made that point a moment ago. What we shall now do is get on with the debate.

Mr. Spellar: The Conservative party might be concerned not just about the identities of those who are making the donations but about their motives. Conservative Members might be concerned that the public and some of us here will put two and two together. Earlier, we discussed knighthoods and peerages. The record of appointments to quangos over a number of years—I refer not only to company officers but to their relatives—shows strong links between donations to the Conservative party and appointments to quangos. One sees the creation of a Conservative client state.

Mr. Deva: I am trying to be helpful to the hon. Gentleman. He made the good point that he was worried that people who were in business or in the City had been invited to places such as Downing street and the Department of Trade and Industry to have their opinions heard and perhaps to have a cup of coffee or tea with a Minister. That has caused the hon. Gentleman great concern; I understand where he is coming from. Am I therefore to believe that if, God forbid, a Labour Government ever came to power, no trade unionist would ever be allowed to go into Downing street and that no trade unionist would ever be allowed to go into the Department for Education and Employment? Am I to believe that there would be no beer and sandwiches in smoke-filled rooms?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That must be the last of the long interventions. Interventions are supposed to be brief and to the point.

Mr. Spellar: The hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mr. Deva) has missed the point of the measure, which is to create transparency, as I said at the outset. I am sorry to have to repeat that point, but it is worth while if the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam has not taken it on board. The public will draw their conclusions from the facts and arguments by political parties, but the public should do that on the basis of knowledge.
As I mentioned earlier, donations from trades unions are properly recorded under the law. The Bill would ensure that other donations to political parties were made public. That is not exceptional in other democracies, and most democracies have a requirement for the publication of donations and, in many cases, registration of donations and computer print-outs to ensure that the public are making an informed choice. That is the key issue.

Lady Olga Maitland: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us about the price tag that the trade unions have over their political bosses? Trade unions buy power over the Labour party. They buy 33 per cent. of the votes in Labour's leadership election and candidate selection and 70 per cent. of the votes at Labour's party conference. Frankly, that is a bribe.

Mr. Spellar: I give way to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Cox: I am sure that my hon. Friend will adequately respond to point made by the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland). In 1992, when my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) was the Labour shadow spokesman on employment, he asked many questions about the visits of Ministers to Hong Kong and whether they were engaged in party activities. If I remember rightly, some 13 were found to have been using their official capacities as Ministers to go touting for funds in Hong Kong.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I assume that the hon. Member for Warley, West will reply to both interventions. Before anybody makes another intervention, he must be given an opportunity to reply.

Mr. Spellar: It is unfortunate, given that I spoke quite slowly when I explained the purpose of the Bill to the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth, that not one jot of that explanation entered the head of the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam, who read out her Conservative central office brief again. She still does not understand the basis of the Bill, which is unfortunate.
I shall deal with the question of overseas donations, which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting, a little later when I have dealt with clause 1.

Lady Olga Maitland: Answer my question.

Mr. Spellar: It is unfortunate that, in spite of much repetition—I am sure that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, have become slightly bored by it—the basis of the Bill has still not got across to the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam.

Lady Olga Maitland: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order, when I put a question to the hon. Member for Warley, West (Mr. Spellar), for him to dodge it?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order and the hon. Lady knew that full well before she raised it. I will deal with genuine points of order. Points of order that are not genuine—they are common in this place—should not be raised and hon. Members should not test the Chair's patience by repeatedly doing so.

Mr. Spellar: Clause 1 would require political parties to publish accounts. That requirement is so unremarkable that as far as back as December 1949 the House passed a resolution that
political parties, and all other organisations having political action as one of their aims, should publish annually full and adequate statements of their accounts.
Unfortunately, although there have been some minor improvements from the Conservative party, it has not seen fit to implement that resolution.
I referred earlier to the charter movement in the Conservative party. Concern at the failure to implement the resolution is not confined to Opposition Members. Conservative Members will be aware of the charter movement in the Conservative party, which has argued, on a broader front, for a formal party constitution. Extraordinarily, the main defence of the Tory party a few


years ago, in a case involving the Inland Revenue, was that the party did not exist at all. The Conservative charter movement wants proper accounts and, it says,
full control over the party's money must be exercised by the elected officers who must be accountable to the membership.
That seems unremarkable, but to the mandarins of the Conservative party it is fearsomely democratic. Conservative party members need real accountability.
The charter movement posed some interesting questions to the former party chairman, the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler). It asked:
Why has there been a consistent refusal to publish a balance sheet? If we are incorrect in our estimate of the balance sheet position at 31st March 1992, what other funds are there directly or indirectly controlled by the party which covered in whole or in part the deficit of £17 million and where are they located?
Both the charter movement and the public want to know whether the funds held in this country are the only funds under the control of the Conservative party or whether there are funds in Jersey and elsewhere—

Mr. Jenkin: It is no secret that the Conservative party has a whacking great overdraft, let alone funds in Jersey or anywhere else.

Mr. Spellar: It is certainly no secret that at that time the Conservative party had a £17 million overdraft. That begs the question why the Royal Bank of Scotland so easily allowed an overdraft of that size to build up with no immediate way of its being repaid. Again, transparency would enable the Conservative party to dispel the argument that the overdraft was carried by the bank because it had an assurance of other sources of funds being held in reserve elsewhere. That may or may not be true, but if the Conservative party were open about its accounts it could confirm or deny that impression.
The charter movement asked:
What were the sources of the said £7 million received from abroad in 1991–92?
My hon. Friend the Member for Tooting mentioned that matter and I shall return to it later. The charter movement also asked:
From how many sources were individual sums in excess of £1 million received in those years?
It then asked questions about loans and borrowings.
All those are extremely important questions both for members of the Conservative party and for the electorate. It is worth noting that recommendations on the publication of funds were included in the report of the Home Affairs Select Committee in 1994. It was not a particularly good report; it covered up a number of matters. However, on the publication of funds it was clear and unequivocal. It said:
We believe that every party should make published accounts available to all those who request them.
That is fairly straightforward and of interest to hon. Members, the public and members of the Conservative party.
The issue does not involve just income. I suspect that Conservative party members would like to know what happens to their money. Indeed, there was uproar when members discovered that it was being used to finance the

legal costs of the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont). It is estimated that the party lost about £500,000 in donations from its ordinary members because of their outrage at that action.
Conservative party members might be interested to know how much it cost to finance the legal action of Mr. Paul Judge against The Guardian. The estimate is £300,000. That does not seem to be an effective use of party funds.

Mr. Jenkin: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My understanding is that the Bill would regulate the funding of political parties, which most people would accept includes donations. Indeed, I am happy to discuss party donations. However, the hon. Member for Warley, West (Mr. Spellar) is exploring at length how parties spend their money. I wonder whether that is in order.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is in order. Second Reading debates are quite wide.

Mr. Spellar: If the hon. Gentleman had got a copy of the Bill—

Mr. Jenkin: I have one here.

Mr. Spellar: It would help if, instead of waving it, the hon. Gentleman read it. Clause 1(2) refers to
duly audited accounts of income and expenditure in a prescribed form.
That seems fairly self-evident, and it should cover his point.
At least the donations that I have just described could be regarded as in-house and from within this country. What about the really sordid part of Conservative finances which my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting mentioned—overseas donations? Several of our fellow democracies are clear on this. They proscribe donations from overseas whether from individuals, companies or Governments. In our consultation it appeared that there were some difficulties in formulating the exact words to handle the matter. However, if we are able to do so in time before the Committee stage, the matter could be dealt with by means of a new clause.
What are the scandals with which we seek to deal? One is the question of tax exemptions. One of the benefits given to a number of donors was a tax break for foreign business men. They were given tax exemptions while resident in the United Kingdom equalled only in Switzerland, the Channel islands and Luxembourg. Estimates of the cost to the public purse of that benefit run to more than £1 billion a year. We are aware that there was a fund-raising dinner for some of those individuals and that the question of tax-exempt status was raised.

Mr. Deva: Is the hon. Gentleman aware—I am sure that he is—that about 45 per cent. of inward investment into the European Union comes to Britain and that many foreign companies are interested in investing in Britain and creating employment? If they believe that the Conservative party would create the best climate and best look after their interests, what is wrong with their investing here and also supporting the Conservative party if they so wish?

Mr. Spellar: Companies in Britain would not be covered by the exemption. That is an issue that the hon. Gentleman might like to take up. So far as I am aware, none of the major investors into Britain, such as Toyota, Nissan, Honda, Sony and Fujitsu, is a donor to the Conservative party. I am talking about rich individuals and their tax-exempt status. That is nothing to do with inward investment. Incidentally, if the hon. Gentleman talks to companies that invest here, he may find that the most attractive feature is that we speak the English language, which is their language of business. I have spoken to several companies about that. If I go any further on that, you will pull me back, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The key area is donations not from those who may be temporarily resident in this country and take advantage of tax-exempt status but from those who are overseas. Ministers, including the Prime Minister, visited Hong Kong. It appears that the then high commissioner in Hong Kong was extremely concerned that some official engagements were turned down so that Ministers could go to a major fund-raising dinner in Hong Kong. Why was Mr. Li Ka-Shing, a major figure in Beijing as well as in Hong Kong, such a major donor to the Conservative party? One of the problems of the Conservative party is that, with the cooling of relations with China, some of those donations have ended.

Mr. Jenkin: A business man in Hong Kong might have regard to the fact that the ultimate responsibility for the Government of Hong Kong lies with the elected Government of this country. Therefore, he has an interest in ensuring that a sensible Government are elected in Britain, instead of a silly one from the Opposition Benches.

Mr. Spellar: That argument might convince the hon. Gentleman but no one else would agree that people who do not live, or have the right to vote in, this country should be able to give huge sums to a political party. People find that proposition extraordinary, as they do in many other major countries.
It is interesting that it can still be argued that people who are not resident, or who are not voters, in this country should seek to be able to buy influence and policy. The hon. Member for Colchester, North is saying that they should be able to buy the Government they want by donating money to enable a party to compete in elections. That involves not only Hong Kong but United States foundations and even, possibly, overseas Governments. They are all potential or alleged donors. In the case of Hong Kong, there are more facts about donations designed to keep one party in power in Britain.

Mr. Cox: We have already touched on Asil Nadir, but I hope that we have not left him completely. It is all on the record; this is not, as Conservative Members are suggesting, just innuendo. We know from parliamentary answers from the Attorney-General that when Mr. Nadir, before he fled the country, was being investigated by the serious fraud squad, Cabinet Ministers, who were not his parliamentary representative, met the Attorney-General. We can only guess why, when they were not his parliamentary representative, they should go to see a Law Officer. We know from replies to parliamentary questions that seven Back Benchers approached the Attorney-General about the serious fraud case against Mr. Nadir.

Mr. Spellar: My hon. Friend has spelt out strongly the problems that were associated with that case and why we believe that the Government were so reticent about it. It comes back to the principle that is sometimes enunciated by Home Office Ministers in discussing the right to silence, when they say that those who have nothing to hide have nothing to fear. We suspect that the Conservative party has much to fear.

Mr. Garnier: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, in its evidence to the Home Affairs Select Committee, the Labour party conceded that it was not against its principles to receive foreign donations, and admitted receiving them from citizens of the United States? Does he think that that was wrong?

Mr. Spellar: I think that we should proscribe donations from abroad. I thought that I had said that clearly not only in this speech but when I sought leave to introduce the Bill. I am pleased to have the support of the hon. and learned Gentleman, who obviously favours such a provision.
The attraction of money from Hong Kong and other dubious sources for Conservative Members was well expressed by a previous leader of the Conservative party, Mr. Stanley Baldwin, in 1927 when he said:
Our one great advantage: wealth. Let us use it. Its expenditure should be regarded as an insurance premium.
That insurance premium is coming not only from business in Britain, but, worse, from business abroad.
We must consider the matter in further detail so that we can get it right. I hope that the commission will be able to draw on the experience of the United States and Australia in particular. That will be its role. I hope that it will make a better job of it than the Select Committee did.
Let us be clear what the Bill is seeking to introduce. Many thoughtful Conservatives realise that the situation in which they find themselves is untenable and indefensible. They understand that a valid, sensible measure should be introduced, which will open up the matter to public scrutiny.
In the words of an American Supreme court justice,
Sunlight is the best disinfectant in a democracy.
The Bill will benefit not only the wider electoral democracy in this country but democracy in the Conservative party. If the Government try to prevent the matter from being brought to a vote today or to frustrate the will of Parliament, which was clearly expressed on 31 January, we and the electorate will rightly conclude that they have a lot to hide and to fear. That is why I have no hesitation in commending the Bill to the House.

Mr. Edward Garnier: I listened with as much interest as I could summon to the arguments of the hon. Member for Warley, West (Mr. Spellar). He is probably the only Member of Parliament who has been known to introduce a Bill and talk it out himself. He has been on his feet for nearly an hour, knowing very well that he had limited time. If he had been keen to get the measure on to the statute book, he would have been more succinct and would have dealt with the interjections of his hon. Friends and Conservative Members with greater celerity, but there we are.
It may be of interest to the hon. Member for Warley, West to learn that the Bill has come up for debate today, not because of some speedy and nefarious deal done yesterday to confuse the other sponsors, but because the Bill between this one and the Sexual Offences (Conspiracy and Incitement) Bill was withdrawn on 3 April. The hon. Members for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), for Wallasey (Ms Eagle), for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), for Paisley, South (Mr. McMaster), for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) and for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane), all of whom sponsored the Bill with the hon. Member for Warley, West, are absent and have failed to look at the business papers to ascertain that the Bill in front of this one was withdrawn from discussion on 3 April. That gives us some indication of the seriousness with which the Bill was introduced.
The way in which the hon. Member for Warley, West handled the Second Reading debate gives yet further evidence for and support to my suggestion that the Bill is nothing more than a political stunt. Let us compare the way in which the Sexual Offences (Conspiracy and Incitement) Bill was introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) and the way in which he dealt with it this morning and in Committee. One can draw no other conclusion than that this Bill is a cheap and silly little stunt and a waste of parliamentary time. One only has to consider the way in which that earlier Bill was dealt with to realise what can be done with a sensible and well-meaning Bill that needs to be brought into play.
Since I think that I am the only hon. Member present who was on the Home Affairs Select Committee that dealt with the funding of political parties I must also point out that, if the hon. Member for Sunderland, South—a sponsor of the Bill, who was also a member of our Select Committee—had thought the Bill of such great importance, he would have been here for to give it a fair wind, if that is the right expression when dealing with the remarks of the hon. Member for Warley, West, not least because he and his colleague the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche), along with the research department at Walworth road, drafted the minority report, most of which was regurgitated in his speech.
Since the hon. Member for Warley, West chose to concentrate only on that minority report, it is fair that the House should learn a little more about the majority report that dealt with the sourcing of political funds with which clause 1 of the Bill deals. I cannot remember whether the hon. Gentleman bothered to refer to clause 1 in detail, but it states:
The Secretary of State shall, by regulations, require each political party to publish annually details of the source and amount of every donation of £1000 or more made to it in the course of the year.
There are two issues there—source and amount. The cut-off amount seems to be £1,000.
In its report, the Select Committee considered evidence from a great many people on this subject, and the arguments for and against disclosure have been succinctly set out. I shall summarise the arguments for the House's benefit, so that it can have them in mind—not only the hon. Gentleman's rantings—when reaching its conclusions about the good sense of the Bill.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler), who was then the chairman of the Conservative party, argued that privacy in donations was as fundamental a right when giving to political parties as it was when giving to any other charitable organisation. I should hope that the hon. Member for Warley, West would have the decency to accept that that point is not only arguable but right.

Mr. Spellar: indicated dissent.

Mr. Garnier: Does the hon. Gentleman wish to intervene?

Mr. Spellar: The hon. and learned Gentleman asked if we would agreed to that proposition, and I say certainly not. In a democracy, the electorate have a right to know who is donating to the political parties that are seeking to run the country and then to draw their own conclusions. That is the Bill's essence.

Mr. Garnier: I think that we have the beginnings of a reasonable argument; the hon. Gentleman has put forward his case, and I shall remind the House of what the then chairman of the Conservative party said in response to that line of argument.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield said that what individuals do with their money is entirely a matter for them, and I suggest that it is not a legitimate interest for inquisitive journalists, political opponents or even the state to know what private individuals give to Oxfam, for example, or to the Labour party, the Conservative party or the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. The interest pretended by the hon. Gentleman is merely prurient and has no genuine public interest basis.
I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield that to reveal the name of an individual donor would be a breach of that donor's right to privacy, although there is nothing to stop an individual donor making his name known if he chooses to do so. Perhaps one of the differences between the interfering, statist Labour party and the Conservative party, of which I am a member, is that the Conservative party respects and hopes to protect the individual's rights, and perhaps that is why a gulf is emerging across the Floor of the House in this debate.

Mr. Jenkin: Did my hon. and learned Friend notice that the hon. Member for Warley, West implied in his intervention that he thought that political parties are elected to the Government to represent the electorate in the House of Commons? Individuals, of course, are elected to the House of Commons. Individuals might stand for election and raise their election funds under a party label, but the electorate vote for individuals in elections. We sit in the House of Commons as individuals, and it is as individuals that we represent our constituents. We do not elect a party apparatus to Government—we elect individuals.

Mr. Garnier: My hon. Friend has made a very telling point, and he made it very well. It is not surprising that the Labour party is the recipient of a huge amount of trade union funds because the trade unions buy policy. The trade unions buy up the Labour party—it is as simple as that. The trade unions attempted between 1974 and 1979


to buy up that Labour Government, and no doubt they are intending and hoping to buy up a future Labour Government. That was the point made by my hon. Friend, and it is a legitimate point, about which the public should continually be reminded.
I am glad that this debate is providing us with an opportunity to remind the public what the Labour party is about—not only through the mechanics of this Bill but through their general philosophy of action, which is to buy up blocks of influence in any way possible to determine the country's future. Individuals and interest groups in this country would be well advised to bear in mind the rather nasty nature of the Labour party that hides behind the smile of its current leader. That lesson will no doubt be learnt more clearly in the next year as the Labour party begins to unravel and to distract itself by its own divisions.
The Home Affairs Select Committee went on to discuss the threshold at which disclosure ought to be made, assuming that it should be made. It was common ground, apparently, that
small donors had a right to privacy because no-one could allege that their gift had been made with any ulterior purpose.
I query that, to the extent that many members of trade unions individually make small donations by way of the political levy which go into a much larger pot, which hammers on to the side of the directing mind, if that is the right expression, of the Labour party.

Mr. Cox: I do not know what the hon. and learned Member knows about the trade union movement, but he referred to the political levy. Is he aware that, under trade union legislation, all trade unionists have to ballot whether they wish to contribute to the political levy of a political party? Does the hon. and learned Gentleman know that?

Mr. Garnier: I not only knew that, but the hon. Gentleman missed the point that I was making—that many people make small donations. It was common ground in the Home Affairs Select Committee that those who make small donations should not be interfered with because the size of their donation could have no real bearing upon the management and policy making of the party to which they were making donations. The point I was making, and I shall say it again slowly so the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) can take it in [Interruption.]—

Mr. Cox: You are not in court now.

Mr. Garnier: The small donations that are brought into an agglomeration through the political levy of the trade union system, once agglomerated, create a huge power of influence. That financial influence is applied to the Labour party to get it to produce policies and go in a direction that is sympathetic to the desires of the membership of the trade union. That is the point, and if it embarrasses the Labour party, so be it.
The evidence given by the parties to the Home Affairs Select Committee on the question of threshold relates directly to the issue of source and amount in clause 1. The Committee noted that, at
the top end of the scale, the Green Party proposed that the names of individuals giving over £50,000 per annum (and the names of all organisations giving gifts) should be disclosed; the SNP suggested that all donations above £20,000 should be published in a party's accounts"—

a Professor Harrison proposed £10,000—
the Labour Party suggested various figures between £10,000 and £1,000 for individual donors, though, according to Mr. Whitty—
then general secretary of the Labour party—
revealing donations of around £150 'would not cause us great difficulty'.; the Liberal Democrats proposed £5,000 as a figure which might be acceptable to other parties, though they were also prepared to reveal donors down to a much lower level; the TUC favoured donations of over £1,000 by individuals and £200 by companies being disclosed".
The Transport and General Workers Union argued for disclosure above
'say £500 or £1,000'.
The Committee also noted:
Among those who favoured a disclosure limit but did not mention a particular amount were the SDLP"—
is that the Northern Irish party?

Mr. Jenkin: Yes.

Mr. Garnier: —and
Charter 88 and the Charter Movement.
The Institute of Public Policy Research, which I believe is a body sympathetic to the Labour party, suggested that
'5 or 6 figure' sums were of considerable importance to the United Kingdom's relatively impoverished political parties.
The witnesses were asked whether as low a threshold for disclosure as just over £150 would be acceptable, and both the officials from the Labour and Liberal Democrat parties emphasised that there would be, as the general secretary of the Labour party, Mr. Whitty, said
'a lot of bureaucratic hassle' in doing so.
It may be that the philosophy behind the figure of £1,000 mentioned in the Bill promoted by the hon. Member for Warley, West has nothing to do with the wider principle of disclosure, about which we obviously disagree, but is simply one of administrative convenience.
Anything below £150 or £500—take whatever figure one likes—would grossly inconvenience individual members of the Labour party because it is likely, according to the historic nature of the Labour party's membership, that individual donations from Labour party members would come at the lower end of the scale, whereas those at the higher end of the scale would be likely to be given, again according to historical evidence, by members of the Conservative party. A nasty little piece of party political discrimination, dressed up as a matter of high principle, is coming in under the fence.
A number of issues concern us. Questions of privacy are involved, as I mentioned earlier, as are questions of administrative practicality. The more donors that a party will be required to list, the more cumbersome the procedure will become. Eighteen months ago, the Home Affairs Select Committee learned that, in the United States—where funding is principally directed to individual candidates rather than to political parties—the candidates must register the name, address and occupation of all people who donate more than $200 to them.
The inquirer at the Federal Election Commission can obtain a computer print-out that lists, for example, all female physicians in Florida who donated more than $200 to candidate X. A considerable bureaucracy is involved, even if the system is based on the citizen's right to know—which I think is the principle that, at best, the hon.


Member for Warley, West was trying to use in support of his case. The hon. Gentleman cannot get much comfort from what occurs in Germany, because parties there need reveal details only of donors who contribute more than DM20,000 in a year.
The thrust of the hon. Gentleman's Bill has to be borne in mind because we are not talking about a two-party Conservative-Labour system—there are a number of small parties, some of which he and I might tolerate and some of which he and I would jointly abhor. For a small regional party, a donation of £1,000 might be a substantial sum and have some significance locally, but given that small parties do not have much influence by and large it would have no significance nationally. Therefore, a £1,000 donation would have no bearing on the movement of the constitution.
In the case of the larger political parties, a £1,000 donation might be welcome, but it will not exactly move the ship. British Airways withdrew its donation when it was cross with the Conservative Government for not doing what it thought was in its interests. That had absolutely no effect on the Conservative party—I do not know how much money British Airways used to donate, but it would have been more than £1,000. That is an example of how a huge donation to a political party—contrary to what the hon. Gentleman might suspect—has absolutely no influence on its philosophy, policies and direction.
Another example is the Duke of Westminster. The hon. Gentleman may remember the Housing and Urban Development Bill of 1993, which was renamed the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Bill. Now that it is safely into law, I can say that it is the nearest thing to theft that I have seen pass through the House. I was a new Member of the House in those days and I thought that what we did was always wonderful. The Duke of Westminster withdrew his support from the Conservative party because he believed that the Bill was antipathetic to his property interests—and he was quite right. His threat of removing his donation from the Conservative party had no bearing on the passage of the Bill through Parliament. However, he decided to vote against it or to abstain.

Mr. Spellar: The hon. and learned Gentleman, like a number of Conservative Members, regularly cites these two cases as though they somehow disprove the proposition. In fact, in many ways they are an endorsement of it. British Airways and the Duke of Westminster, like many other donors to the Conservative party, had an expectation that matters that were going to be in their interests would be decided in their interests. We do not hear from the hon. Gentleman about people who get their knighthoods, get their peerages and get the decisions in their favour. We hear about people who had that expectation but had it frustrated.

Mr. Garnier: The hon. Gentleman should do us the courtesy of reading—and, if he has read it, understanding—the evidence that was given to the Home Affairs Select Committee. The same canards were produced by Labour members of the Home Affairs Select Committee in the hearings before us 18 months ago. It beggars belief how those hon. Members who asked those

questions could do so with a straight face, bearing in mind the history of abuse of the honours system engineered by the Labour party in the past 50 or 60 years—but let us leave that aside.
The simple point, and the answer to the question by the hon. Member for Warley, West, was given clearly by my right hon. Friend the then chairman of the Conservative party, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield.
Perhaps the Labour party has been out of Government for so long that Labour Members do not realise it, but there is a thing called the Honours Committee, which scrutinises all applications for honours. Every time that an application is made for a political honour, the Committee scrutinises it to ensure that it is a proper application. Every time that there is a "big business" application, the Committee, which is made up of members of all parties—or at least the three big parties—scrutinises it to ensure that the honour is being awarded, not for political skulduggery, as the hon. Gentleman would have it, but for public service or for service to industry, to exports or to charity.
The suggestion that is constantly repeated by Labour Members simply to make childish-sounding debating points does them no credit. It would do the hon. Member for Warley, West a great deal more credit if he were to take the trouble to read not only his hon. Friend's minority report but the all-party majority report, which is here for all to see.
The conclusion that the Home Affairs Select Committee reached on this aspect of its report was that
we"—
the Committee—
do not believe that a case has been made out for requiring disclosure of the identity of donors; where donations are made from identifiable and legitimate sources known to the party they should be allowed to remain private.
That is a sensible working arrangement, which accepts and respects the privacy of the individual to donate money to whomever and to whatever organisation he or she considers appropriate.
The Committee said that it did not believe that any limit on the amount a donor could give would be acceptable in British circumstances. It dealt with company donations; I invite hon. Members to read the passages about that, because I know that the hon. Member for Tooting wishes to speak and I am reasonably sure that other Conservative Members wish to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Having demolished as politely as I can the good sense of the Bill, I leave the Floor to others.

Mr. Tom Cox: I shall not waste the time of the House commenting on the previous speech.
The debate has been very interesting. My hon. Friend the Member for Warley, West (Mr. Spellar) has done a service by bringing the matter to the attention of the House, even though time has been limited, because the general public obviously wish to know who funds political parties.
We heard, as we always do, about the trade union movement. I am a sponsored trade union Member, and all the moneys that are allocated to my political party are very clearly recorded.
I wish to speak about Mr. Asil Nadir. I am chairman of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association Cyprus group in the House, so this issue is of very great interest to me.
Before people start to criticise the length of the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Warley, West, they should read the Official Report on Monday and see the fanatical interventions that he faced.
Mr. Nadir met very senior members of the Conservative party many times over a very long period. We know that they have admitted that he gave very substantial sums to the Conservative party. I understand that the former party chairman, the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler), has never denied that. All he has said is, "I am not really sure, and we are not really sure, whether that money was stolen. Until we are certain, we will hang on to it." We know that Mr. Nadir had the opportunity to meet senior Conservative Cabinet Ministers and senior Back-Bench Members. We are in no doubt—Mr. Nadir said it himself—that he was looking for a knighthood. He did not receive one and he must have been extremely disappointed.
It became known that Mr. Nadir was a crook—I choose my words carefully: he was and is a crook and is sheltering in occupied northern Cyprus. We learned more about Mr. Nadir's failed business activities. All hon. Members know that, under parliamentary convention, one hon. Member does not interfere in another hon. Member's constituency unless he or she is asked about constituency issues—

It being half-past Two o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Debate to be resumed upon Friday 26 April.

Orders of the Day — Remaining Private Members' Bills

EMPLOYMENT (UPPER AGE LIMITS IN ADVERTISEMENTS) BILL

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Second Reading [9 February].

Hon. Members: Object.

Debate further adjourned till Friday 26 April.

REGULATION OF DIET INDUSTRY BILL

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Second Reading [9 February].

Hon. Members: Object.

Debate further adjourned till Friday 26 April.

TOBACCO (PROTECTION OF CHILDREN AND RESTRICTION OF PROMOTION) BILL

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Second Reading what day? No day named.

ACCESS TO THE COUNTRYSIDE BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 26 April.

WATER (CONSERVATION AND CONSUMER CHOICE) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 26 April.

WELFARE OF BROILER CHICKENS BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 26 April.

HOSTAGE RECOVERY BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 26 April.

SEXUAL OFFENCES AGAINST CHILDREN (REGISTERS OF OFFENDERS) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 9 May.

DANGEROUS DOGS (AMENDMENT) BILL [LORDS]

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 9 May.

FREEZING OF HUMAN EMBRYOS BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 26 April.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, at the sitting on Tuesday 30th April, the Speaker shall put the Question on the first Motion in the name of Mr. Tony Blair relating to Education not later than one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings thereon or half-past Eleven o'clock, whichever is the earlier; no further such Motion shall be made after that hour; and the said Motions may be proceeded with, though opposed, after the expiry of the time for opposed business.—[Mr. Wells.]

Mr. Tom Cox: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you bring to the attention of Madam Speaker when you next see her the objections that were made to two Bills today—Bills Nos. 5 and 10, especially Bill No. 10? We have spent much of this morning discussing the important issues surrounding Bill No. 10. Will you bring to the attention of Madam Speaker the utter disgust felt by many hon. Members that the Government Whip deliberately objected to both those Bills.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): That is not a matter for the Chair.

Orders of the Day — Air Quality (Nottingham)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Wells.]

Mr. Graham Allen: I am delighted to bring before the House today the important subject of air pollution, particularly as it affects my constituency and the city of Nottingham. Last week, three 11-year-old pupils of Southglade junior school in Bestwood park in my constituency wrote to me about the issue. Abby Herod, Laura Bowen and Zoe Tolcher said in their letter:
We are disappointed with the atmosphere that we are breathing in. We would like you to put a stop to all the fumes that are coming from all the cars and factories. Couldn't we use bicycles and buses more often—that will make less fumes and gases so the air will be safer.
I should like to dedicate today's debate to those three young people, and to the many others in my constituency who have this week discussed the issue of air pollution in Nottingham and elsewhere.
Those young people will be the main campaigners when we tackle the problem seriously in the future. They will save the planet from air pollution, and they will see through the policies necessary to ensure that our air is once again fit to breathe.
Local media will also play an important role. The local newspaper, the Nottingham Evening Post, has led a vociferous air quality campaign in our city. It is essential that the politicians and the decision-makers—I am glad that the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison), is to respond to the debate—are informed about public opinion.
We have no choice but to breathe air which continues to be polluted. Poor air quality causes poor health. Britain's air quality has deteriorated by 35 per cent. in the past 10 years. Asthma kills about 2,000 people a year, and one in seven children in Nottingham are affected by asthma, like children in every constituency throughout the land.
The link between air pollution and worsening asthma conditions is now well accepted. A recent study in Birmingham found that children admitted to hospital with asthma were more likely to live close to busy roads than those who were admitted for other reasons. Government research has linked airborne particles to lung and heart disease. It is now accepted that lower levels of pollution than originally thought adversely affect health.
Much good work has been done in this area in Nottingham and elsewhere, dating back to the 1950s. The most obvious pollutants have been dealt with: the smoke and sulphur dioxide created by coal burning and factory emissions have been subject to ever greater controls. However, the main air pollution villain in modern Britain, including in my constituency, is the motor car and other vehicular traffic which burns diesel and petrol fuels.
Unfortunately, delays in Government funding for Nottingham's automatic urban monitoring station mean that I do not have the precise figures for Nottingham's air quality. However, I imagine that they are not dissimilar to the figures for London's air quality. In London, traffic is responsible for 99 per cent. of carbon monoxide emissions, 76 per cent. of nitrogen oxides and 96 per cent.


of black smoke, including particulates. It is a sad record, but I am delighted to report that the local authorities in Nottingham and the surrounding area are working hard to solve the problem, and they have made a great deal of progress.
Despite 85 per cent. of its revenue being at the beck and call of Government—like that of most other local authorities—Nottingham has set about tackling the air pollution problem. I pay tribute to those in the city and in the county council—both at officer and at councillor level—for their hard work. I shall give some examples of that work.
Nottingham city council has introduced a pioneering scheme, the green commuter scheme, which I had the privilege of helping to launch several months ago. It aims to reduce traffic congestion and to improve air quality. The county council is encouraging its staff to car-share and to use their cars less for journeys to work—the first time that any county council has introduced such a scheme.
The same two councils have been involved in conducting pioneering research with Dr. Margaret Bell and her team at the university of Nottingham. Pollution monitors worth £140,000 are now in place at schools, roundabouts and junctions in and around Nottingham, and they are linked to the urban traffic control centre. Those devices monitor traffic flow—the stops and starts, the congestion and the pollution—and produce a report on the city's air quality. The project hopes that, by revealing how changes in transport affect the quality of environment, it will encourage ideas on reducing the need for travel and promoting public transport by encouraging people to live closer to their place of work, use bicycles or, where appropriate, walk to work.
I hope that the Minister will take up my offer to come to Nottingham and see that valuable work. I know that he will be impressed, and I very much hope that he will feel that it is some of the best practice in the United Kingdom, which he may wish to share with other local authorities to encourage them.
Nottinghamshire is the first county council to display travel information on the Internet, and it hopes shortly to explore the use of cable television and variable message signs to help reduce congestion by getting information about the state of our roads to people in their homes before they leave for work or leisure activities, thus, one hopes, helping them to decide whether to leave the car at home and use public transport.
Those local councils have proved that, if they are given the tools, they will get on with the job and help to tackle the problem of air quality and pollution in our city. We all know that much more could be done. Local authorities such as Nottingham and Nottinghamshire, although they have an excellent record in tackling air quality, as demonstrated by the introduction of smoke control areas—one needs only to talk to councillors and council officers—know that they could do a heck of a lot more if the Government helped and encouraged them along the way.
For example, work could start quickly to minimise hot spots, where pollution is particularly chronic, and to reduce the incidence of summer and winter smog. It is necessary first to pinpoint the most severe problems and measure the pollution, and then take action to alleviate it.
Councillor John Hartshorne, the chairman of the council's environment committee, told me that Nottingham was keen to be one of the pilot areas tackling traffic pollution problems, but the Government rejected its bid. Along with a number of forward-thinking authorities, Nottingham scraped together its precious spare cash—that is indeed a precious commodity in these days of restraints on local council spending—and paid for its own traffic pollution monitoring facilities.
The local authorities that were chosen for the pilot projects on congestion monitoring were given only £3 million, as opposed to the £15 million that they calculated as necessary to do the job adequately.
Another way in which councils could be encouraged to tackle the problem of local air pollution and air quality involves car and lorry exhaust checks. Half all traffic pollution is generated by just 10 per cent. of the vehicles, so spot checks on cars and lorries are vital. However, only the police have the power to stop vehicles.
I am not asking the Minister to make a snap judgment today, but to go away and think about an issue that he and the Government have already considered and that needs to be re-examined. There should be discussions with the police to figure out how that power could be shared, so that local councils, perhaps working with the Vehicle Inspectorate, in certain tightly defined circumstances could have the power to stop vehicles.
An immense number of practical problems need to be resolved. We would not want people to pretend to be vehicle inspectors or local authority employees in order to stop people who were driving alone at night, but if the power were tightly defined, perhaps by agreeing certain hours and certain places where vehicles could be stopped, and if the individuals were appropriately uniformed and had appropriately screened, local authorities might be able to get on with the job of monitoring vehicle emissions and advising drivers how best to tackle that problem. There is no easy answer, but I hope that the Minister will at least think about the problem with an open mind and see whether there is an answer to it.
The Environment Act 1995 will allow for the introduction, in 1997, of regulations giving local authorities the power to enforce local road closures and diversions if air quality standards are breached in pollution hot spots. However, although a trunk road passing through the centre of Nottingham is likely to be the primary source of traffic pollution in the area, the local authority has no powers over trunk roads, and will only be able to close, or divert traffic away from, surrounding roads. Again, the Minister may wish to look at that power to see whether it can be extended.
What can the Government do further to assist local authorities? First, they must get their own job sorted out, and get their own house in order. The Government have said that they will set national targets for the nine worst pollutants, but as yet the provisions are not in force. Although a small group of local councils are piloting the initiative, the Government have stipulated that 2005 will be the year in which they hope to achieve their air quality objectives. Surely that policy could be reviewed by the Minister.
The problem is certainly getting worse. The Department of Transport has predicted that car use will more than double its 1988 level by 2025. Unfortunately, the Government have no transport policy to speak of.


Indeed, I understand that they want to wind up the Department of Transport, because they do not see it as having any function.
The Government also, sadly, continue to do little to promote transport choice or the shift from the private car to buses, trains, bicycles and walking. If that shift does not take place, there will be a huge increase in the number of traffic jams in my city and in cities throughout the land. The Minister well knows that a car idling in a traffic jam can double its fuel consumption, and can put double the amount of pollution into the atmosphere compared with a vehicle travelling at its best average speed.
I am not putting an anti-car view. On the contrary, we can have more cars, as people do in Germany. In Germany, however, although there is a higher level of car ownership, there is a lower level of car use, because there are adequate public transport alternatives. People have cars, but use them less; that should in many ways be the slogan we adopt in our environmental policy on traffic.
No one pretends that the answers are easy or straightforward, but much can be done at all levels—city, county and national Government. We need policy co-ordination. Professor Richard Madeley of the department of public health at Nottingham university told me that, at the moment, it can cost £2.60 for two people to go to Nottingham city centre by bus, whereas it costs only 70p to park there for two hours.
We need to consider co-ordination and integration, and we need to encourage people, not least by the price mechanism, to use appropriate forms of transport rather than doing what we all do, which is to drag the car into the middle of the city, often with only one person in it, thus holding up the bus which often has 30, 40 or 50 people in it.
Local councils need time to plan the air quality management areas proposed in the Environment Act. So far, they have received no timetable, no funding and no guidance. Perhaps the Minister can tell us why there has been a delay.
People in Nottingham and throughout the country increasingly demand clean, green alternatives to private cars. The Government must now allow local authorities to create some of the transport choices that will lead us towards a greener future. We shall also need to look at the levels of funding for local authorities so that they can perform the job appropriately. It is not necessarily a matter of more funding. The problem could be solved by having stable funding. Ministers in all spending Departments are aware that annual funding for authorities or any organisation causes difficulties for those Ministers who are trying to make serious efforts to tackle key problems.
Nottingham is trying to tackle air pollution and air quality, but it has one hand tied behind its back. The Government should consider a range of additional policies to help tackle air pollution, including encouraging employers to introduce a green commuter plan, as Nottingham has done. The Government should make public transport better, more environmentally friendly and more pleasant to use, not least by increasing the use of buses. That could be facilitated by considering bus re-regulation, which is obviously necessary in a number of our cities because cowboy operators turn up with old

charabancs that belch out black smoke to the detriment of the good public, municipal and private operators. Fuels with lower sulphur content should be used.
The Government should promote changed work patterns to reduce traffic peaks and pollution hot spots. We should make the fullest use of railways and inland and coastal waterways for the transport of goods and to discourage long-haul road transport, when appropriate. We need to develop and implement alternative sources of energy to fossil fuels; introduce priority vehicle schemes in city centres; and fund park-and-ride schemes.
There are many possibilities. Public transport, for example, could use more energy-efficient vehicles. In Nottingham, we could fuel vehicles from electricity generated by burning refuse. Public transport vehicles that operate in a mainly pedestrianised city centre could be fuelled from non-fossil-fuel-generated electricity. That would make a major contribution to air quality in the city centre.
A whole raft of bright ideas and innovative thinking is out there. There are bags of ideas. I ask the Minister to consider the fact that there are answers, provided we work at them. My final words to the Minister come from the three young people that I quoted when at the beginning of my speech—Abby, Laura and Zoe. They said:
If you or any one else won't do something about it, this earth will soon fade away and kill every living thing. Nearly all gases are dangerous to us so can you please try and do something about this.
I could not have put it better myself.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. James Clappison): I welcome the opportunity to respond to a debate on the important subject of air quality, on which much progress has recently been made. Standards are rising, and that is right. Air quality is an important issue, in Nottingham as elsewhere in the country. I am happy to accept the invitation of the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) to visit Nottingham to see what is happening there.
Nottingham is part of the United Kingdom's smoke and sulphur dioxide monitoring network, and also takes part in the national nitrogen dioxide tube survey. That monitoring indicates that Nottingham experiences air quality that is, on the whole, pretty typical for urban areas in the United Kingdom, and levels of smoke and sulphur dioxide are well below the EC limit values.
We are currently improving our national monitoring networks further, to improve our assessment of the extent to which air quality standards and targets are being achieved; to provide better information to the public and other interested bodies; and to improve our understanding of air quality problems. To that end, this year we are expanding our automatic monitoring network to around 100 sites, including seven new automatic monitoring stations, one of which—the hon. Member will be pleased to hear—will be in Nottingham.
That site will provide continuous and accurate monitoring of ozone, nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, sulphur dioxide and particulate matter, to which the hon. Member drew attention. We are discussing an appropriate site for the station with the city council.
We need to do more than just monitor air quality. The air quality in the United Kingdom is generally pretty good, and has improved considerably over the past 30 to


40 years, but the Government recognise that many people are concerned about the smell, nuisance and potential health effects of some pollutants, We want to improve living conditions, especially in our cities and for the sake of future generations. We are determined to manage and improve air quality, both across the nation and wherever there are particular problems.
We are now preparing our first national air quality strategy, which will set air quality standards and targets and outline the measures that will be taken at international, national and local level to meet them. That will build on the controls that are already in place.
The United Kingdom already has in place one of the most sophisticated industrial air pollution control systems in Europe, consisting of integrated pollution control and local authority air pollution control. Authorisations are based upon what is described as the best available techniques not entailing excessive cost, which are reviewed every four years.
The first large review of integrated pollution control authorisations, dealing with electricity generators, has recently been completed. That will result in very substantial reductions in emissions of sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and particulates. Emissions of sulphur dioxide and smoke from domestic households are controlled through the smoke control area system, which was introduced in 1956. Nottingham has five integrated pollution control processes in operation and 65 local authority air pollution controls. It completed its smoke control programme in 1991, so all households in the city fall within smoke control areas.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned vehicle emission, which is another important source of pollution, besides industrial pollution. It concerns many people. Traffic is a major pollutant, and in many of our towns and cities today it is the main source of air pollution.
Emissions from the transport sector are mainly controlled through European Community legislation, in particular through emission standards for new vehicles and standards on the quality of automotive fuels. European standards for new vehicles were agreed in the early 1990s, which made the fitting of catalytic convertors to petrol cars compulsory from 1993. Even more stringent standards for vehicles have been agreed for 1996–97.
These measures will provide the backbone to our policies for reducing emissions from road transport. As the proportion of vehicles conforming to the tougher standards grows, emissions of air pollutants should fall dramatically over the next 10 years—despite a likely steady rise in the size of the vehicle fleet and the number of kilometres driven. However, an increase in the volume of traffic will affect that picture over the longer term. Therefore, we need further progress to reduce average emissions per vehicle.
The European Commission is expected to bring forward new proposals for vehicle emission and fuel quality standards for the year 2000 and beyond. We shall be looking to agree a positive, cost-effective package of measures that will bring down vehicle emissions substantially and bring us closer to meeting our air quality objectives. As the cleaner vehicles come to predominate in the fleet, we will also tighten the enforcement standards for them, as the hon. Gentleman mentioned.
However, technological fixes are not enough; patterns of behaviour must change as well. We are therefore encouraging public and private fleet operators to act in an environmentally responsible way, and we are providing the public with information about greener motoring habits. We need a framework for that action to ensure that everyone understands what the important air quality priorities really are; we need to bring that home to people.

Mr. Allen: I thank the Minister for his courtesy in giving way. What is the current state of the debate on the diesel versus petrol problem? Many of us bought diesel cars thinking we were doing the right and the green thing. Now we are told to have second thoughts.

Mr. Clappison: We keep the question of emissions from diesel under close review. The hon. Gentleman referred to particulates. He will know that there is an issue about emissions from diesels. He will also know the measures to deal with that taken by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor in the last Budget, which perhaps reflect the changed thinking to which the hon. Gentleman referred. It is fair to say that diesels also cause pollution, and we will be examining that point as we seek higher standards in the European Community.
Our approach has been based on expert scientific evidence. We are working on the best available scientific advice and on the best advice on the best outcome for health.
We have recently received reports and recommendations from the independent expert panel on air quality standards, as well as the committee on the medical effects of particulates. We also take into account information from other sources such as the World Health Organisation.
On the basis of this technical and scientific advice, we are looking to set down clear national standards and objectives for air quality, to be achieved by a given timetable. We seek a national strategy backed up by flexible and cost-effective action at a local level, through the system of local air quality management areas, to which the hon. Member adverted. In the time that is left, I emphasise that they have an important role to play, particularly in the local management areas to which the hon. Gentleman adverted.
We are also committed to keeping our policies under review to ensure that progress is maintained. As the hon. Gentleman implied a moment ago, scientific views and knowledge change and we have to keep abreast of those changes. We also have to make the best possible information available to the general public.
Our air quality strategy is under consideration. We have been putting in place the elements for it. It will shortly be available. We look forward to building on the considerable achievements that we have already had in improving air quality. We want to see improved air quality for future generations. We are taking the action to achieve this. I am sure that will be welcome to everyone, including to the three young ladies in the hon. Gentleman's constituency to whom he referred.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Three o'clock.